Part 1: 9/11 Debates
The following comments were made under:
DEBATE ISSUES
https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-debates/debate-issues/621888681188274
9/11 Debates: Neutron Nuclear DEW
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/permalink/662698580440617/
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : it was a controlled demolition. However...
2014-01-10
Agreed: 9/11 was an inside job. It was a controlled demolition. However...
Nano-thermite with regards to 9/11 is a ~~farce~~ to distract the science-challenged public from the fact that 9/11 was nuclear. (Multiple) enhance radiation weapons were used per tower; ERW are special configurations of neutron bombs and don't leave lingering levels of radiation. Look it up...
The dust samples from neither the USGS report nor the Lioy report detected any nano-thermite, or any other chemical explosive or incendiary. Of course, the Lioy report also limited itself to 3 "representative" samples, all East of the WTC, were delayed at the times they were measured (which allowed radiation to dissipate), and lists Uranium as having been found but doesn't explain why or its source: blatant omission. The USGS report was much more thorough in its collection of dust samples, but does not analyze the obvious correlations in the dust to a nuclear recipe (fission-triggered fusion in a neutron bomb). You'll have to refer to Jeff Prager for pointing out what correlations were in the dust, while asking yourself why nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones didn't perform such analysis. (You'll also have to ask yourself why Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et al deliberately chose to not run tests on their dust samples -- even years later -- for residues of high explosives.)
The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the WTC" had a limited scope which precluded it from considering tritium coming from nuclear mechanisms. It succeeded in its goals of wild-ass speculating that the sources of tritium could ~~possibly~~ have come from things in the tower (e.g., airplane exit signs, scopes on weapons, timepieces), but due to its strict limitations in the formation of the efforts -- that extended to stopping the measuring of samples when tritium was coming up small and below EPA thresholds for health impacts at a small number of far-flung sampling points and not even at any of the hot-spots -- this report could not and should not have been used by Dr. Jones as by-near the sole authority on what tritium was present at the towers to "repudiate the use of nuclear weapons."
Good ole professor Jones did not even mention neutron bombs in his no-nukes paper. And in foisting up nano-thermite as the cause, Dr. Jones (Dr. Harrit, Mr. Jonathon Cole, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Ryan) never performed the very simple high school math relating to burn rates of chemical explosives/incendiaries to work backwards from hot-spot durations to obtain estimates on quantities ~~leftover~~ from their original purpose of WTC pulverization. Why? Because this suggest obscenely massive quantities that weren't found in any dust samples except what was given him out of the apartment of some lady friend. Not very Occam Razor.
Dr. Jones has never attempted to explain the vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner that can be explained as errant EMP slipping out line-of-sight through window slits. Dr. Wood collected most of the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear but wrapped it under the wacky umbrellas of "Hutchison" and "Tesla DEW or Hurricane Erin DEW", yet she craftily makes sure to remind readers many times TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE (and not necessarily her analysis.) Heligian Mutt-and-Jeff disinfo agents.
And when a nuclear 9/11 using specialized neutron bombs is rationally considered, we more readily understand the lengths and duration of the PR effort into "gravity driven pancake stacks." Nuclear "anything" exposes both the perpetrators and the callousness of their actions, while at the same time causing a mass, hysterical exodus from NYC despite their choice in neutron bombs not leaving linger levels of radiation. And if they didn't steer public perceptions away from nukes, their other war-drumming efforts could have had a hysterical public nuking the very prizes the PNAC hoped to snag from the Middle East: control of oil, natural gas, and heroin. Hence the nano-thermite limited-hang-outs.
In all fairness, we did "nuke the Middle East" in our usage of Depleted Uranium weapons, which further underscores the callous mindset of the PTB that also got us Guantanamo, torture, and other un-Constitutional autrocities.
Revelations of a nuclear 9/11 are still being actively suppressed, because it would be "nuclear" in many other figurative ways. Like in exposing the infiltration to the 9/11TM; like in "massive chain-reaction blowing up" the public's ire at the government, causing the people to make massive, radical changes to oust the agencies, institutions, leaders, banks, corporations, MIC, etc.: in short, the status quo.
//
x5 Maxwell C. Bridges : clever contributions
2014-01-10
James Paladino, such clever contributions that you've made to this thread:
- Maybe if you were there instead of getting Starbucks and weed we wouldn't be having this conversation!
- you should NOT breed. Please seek help.
- Take your medication EVERY day, not just on days you all feel bad. Your embarrassing yourselves badly.
- If there was any wonder why the government should listen to phone calls, your it. Where are all you wackos from?
- Unfortunately Mat for us Americans who weren't in diapers like yourself we have to live in the real world. For us FDNY veterans who were present it's hard to live in fantasy land like once again like yourself. Because none of the things you say happened actually happened.
Too bad it disputes nothing with evidence, science, or proper analysis. Just crafty ad hominem. What's up with that?
//
x6 Maxwell C. Bridges : the disinformation to steer us away
2014-01-10
Kevin James, Here's an article that goes into the disinformation that was fed to us both from the government and from within the 9/11 Truth Movement to steer us away from nuclear considerations.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
//
x7 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE911 does not support the nuclear weapons view
2014-01-10
Dear Mr. Brian Sachse,
Of course "AE911 does not support the nuclear weapons view" because ultimately it was infiltrated precisely to stop-gap such nuclear considerations.
You write so confidently "There is no proof for this [nuclear weapons on 9/11]."
Too bad tritium dispenses with this handily, not to mention a proper analysis of the USGS dust samples that shows not just the requisite trace elements, but them in correlated quantities that a nuclear recipe easily explains (and that Dr. Jones et al never have).
You write: "This [nuclear premise] is just distracting people from the actual science behind Architects and Engineers."
Not really, and just the opposite. When Jeff Prager published the obvious nuclear correlations in the USGS dust samples, Dr. Steven Jones (9/2012) couldn't really respond to it except to refer people to his deeply flawed "no-nukes" paper that doesn't even mention neutron bombs and is based on other flawed reports. But the one thing Dr. Jones let slip out was that "something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite."
In other words, whereas Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan did an excellent job in attributing spikes in toxic spew from the smoldering WTC pile to nano-thermite, this work glosses over "THE ACTUAL SCIENCE" regarding what was maintaining the hot-spots between such spikes. A glaring omission, because when you do the math on any combination of chemical explosives/incendiaries added to nano-thermite to achieve hot-spots that burned for MANY WEEKS, neither content from the WTC nor such chemical based weapons can explain it -- without obscenely massive quantities that ain't Occam Razor to implement.
Moreover, the reason Dr. Jones never tested (and refuses to test) his independently received dust samples for the residue of other explosives isn't the lame reason given by Roberts: "If the ability to test such residue has reached its sell-by date and can't be detected, the gravity-driven-pile-driver crowd will have a field day when these results are published."
No. The reason such tests weren't made (public) is because they knew it would come up empty for such residue. After all, the USGS dust samples, the Lioy dust samples, as well as the dust samples from the Banker's Trust building (commissioned by an insurance company) all came up negative for such. Obviously the non-science-challenged crowd of the 9/11TM would recognize that energy still had to be added to achieve the controlled demolition (CD), even if it wasn't nano-thermite in combo with those other explosives. Therefore, they would continue looking for the true source of such energy, which we know was massive.
WTC-7's free-fall is useful to get "non-believers in CD" onto the proper 9/11 page. Thank-you A&E9/11 Truth. However, what should get "non-believers in 9/11 nukes" onto the proper page are (1) tritium, (2) proper analysis of the dust that show correlated trace elements of nuclear methods, (3) duration of under-rubble hot-spots, (4) first responder ailments, (5) massive energy of destruction.
//
x8 Maxwell C. Bridges : everyone is wrong and your right
2014-01-10
James Paladino, Are you a 9/11 Truther? I don't know, because I can't tell by any of your statements, designed not to be informative or to argue specific points, but to push buttons. Kudos on your cognitive infiltration here in FB.
You wrote: "everyone who was there and saw nothing that you claim is wrong and your right."
Wrong (not just grammatically). The neutron nuclear DEW premise is actually substantiated in part by eye witnesses, who observed WTC-1 & 2 pulverizing themselves at free-fall speeds and relatively quietly compared to the deafening nature of the requisite massive amounts of chemical-based explosives/incendiaries required to achieve what was observed. Many anomalous things were observed by people who were there, such as "cars popping off" of Vessey and the torched vehicles along West Broadway. Pyroclastic dust don't explain it, because if it was so hot-and-spicy, why didn't it burn the insides of other buildings, pedestrian bridges, flags on flag poles, leaves on trees, or people?
FTR, I'm not disputing that chemical-based explosives/incendiaries were used. What I dispute is that they were the primary destructive mechanisms. To be sure, I'm sure chemical-based explosives/incendiaries were part of the redundant back-up plans to the back-up plans to assure a Hollywood style shock-and-awe baby event. I speculate in a wild-ass fashion that neutron DEW nukes (multiple per tower) aimed their neutrons upwards (to get the neutrons out of the way and to reduce the blast/heat yields to tactical levels) and took out the inner core and content, but that chemical-based explosives/incendiaries were used to severe the bolts on the external wall assemblies milli-seconds after the nukes, thereby having the wall assemblies act as a shield for nuclear flash and EMP.
The bottom-line is that the evidence doesn't point to gravity alone. All of the theories of CD based on chemical-based explosives/incendiaries come up vastly short in explaining all of the evidence. And all of the reports (from the government and from within the 9/11 TM by PhD's in Physics) are proven faulty by accepting flawed government reports unchallenged, by framing things inappropriately, by omitting things (like any mention of neutron bombs), and by not explaining all of the evidence (like the duration of under-rubble hot-spots).
You have a bone to pick with nuclear methods deployed on 9/11? Go pick it with the author of the article I linked above.
//
x9 Maxwell C. Bridges : below-market prices
2014-01-13
They were in such a hurry to dispose of the WTC steel, they sold it for below-market prices. As was mentioned by another comment, the steel wasn't immediately shipped off. It was sent to Fresh Kills, where it was sorted and decontaminated.
If it was just a gravity-driven pile driver (the official story) or if just chemical based explosives/incendiaries were involved (e.g., the nano-thermite farce), the PTB would have known this and wouldn't have needed to perform decontamination procedures. One piece of evidence collected by Dr. Wood is that they trucked in fresh dirt, spread it around, let sit for a couple days, then collected it again and shipped it out. This is a known radiation mitigation technique.
9/11 was nuclear, and my article goes into details into how reports from the government and the 9/11TM were juked to steer public thought away from such considerations.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
//
x10 Maxwell C. Bridges : the proper lens with which to view the WTC tower destruction are nuclear ones
2014-01-13
Dear Mr. Ron Angell,
I support Dr. Judy Wood for the compelling evidence she collects that other theories-du-jour do not address, but not for her theories that she can't power in any operational sense. She gives nuclear mechanisms too quickly the brush off.
When talking directed energy weapon (DEW), the common paradigm is to think laser where the energy is focused to a burning/destructive point. When talking nukes, people think not just lots of energy but that energy being used to destroy things very energetically. When talking neutron bombs, people think killing life forms with neutron radiation (with the mistaken assumption that no blast/heat wave is present to damage things.)
The paradigm shift with 9/11 (that I say were multiple "neutron DEW") is that its DEW portion had the purpose of directing the emitted neutrons of a neutron bomb away and THROWING AWAY the lion's share of the energy in this manner. The neutron were not targeted in a "useful fashion" in the sense of "destruction" and "killing."
However, by targeting the neutrons upwards, (1) inter-nuke fracticide of a multi-device CD is avoided and (2) the blast/heat waves of the neutron bombs [fission-triggered fusion] were significantly reduced down to TACTICAL LEVELS, as observed.
Yes, thermite incendiaries can produce extremely hot temperatures. The fly in the 9/11 ointment is that OBSCENELY MASSIVE QUANTITIES of thermite would be required to sustain even a single hot-spot (there more multiple) that burned only four weeks (some burned longer). Worse, the under-rubble hot-spots supposedly represent thermite that was unspent and left-over from its original purpose, so making the original quantities that had to be lugged into the towers GROSSLY OBSCENELY MASSIVE. Just as bad, thermite reacts with steel from which it gets its oxygen and leaving iron as a by-product. How many iron blobs were present afterwards to indicate that such lengthy chemical reactions took place? Worst of all, multiple reports from the USGS to the Lioy report to the RJ Lee report on Banker's Trust DID NOT DETECT such explosive/incendiary residue in their samples. Sure, reports can be juked, and these all have issues. The debunking factor is the math: what quantities of thermite are required for a multi-week reaction and where are the iron blobs of by-product? [The "metiorite" is one and only one possible example.]
Dr. Jones admits 9/2012: "Something maintain those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite." Yet refuses to research what else. His no-nukes paper frames things as large nukes, doesn't even mention neutron bombs, and is based on a flawed tritium report that, due to its scope limits, can't be re-purposed as the final word on tritium.
No, the proper lens with which to view the WTC tower destruction (at least) are nuclear ones. It explains everything, even the eifer of the cover-up that continues today.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
//
x11 Maxwell C. Bridges : opposing pincers in a Helgian Dialectic to distract us
2014-01-21
It is well for people to remember that Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood used to be on the same team, before they became opposing pincers in a Helgian Dialectic to distract us.
Whether or not super duper nano-thermite was used, Dr. Jones et al never made the case for how it explains lots of anomalies, from the duration of under-rubble hot-spots to damage to vehicles along West Broadway and the car parks. Not only is Dr. Jones discovery of nano-thermite not supported by other groups (e.g., the USGS, RJ Lee Group, and Paul Lioy et al), but Dr. Jones didn't study & analyze the raw data of those other groups to discover the blatant correlations in the dust to nuclear mechanisms. The work of Dr. Jones has many issues and can really only be explained as "disinfo infiltration & steering of the 9/11TM."
Dr. Wood, on the other hand, is awesome for presenting evidence and asking questions that nobody else has. Nobody, not even Dr. Jones, has ventured to debunk her book or website page-by-page, image-by-image. Dr. Wood does have disinformation, too, but nobody wants to seriously attempt to debunk it, because the copious amount of valid evidence left-over from the debunking would still need to be addressed. Dr. Wood can't even power the mechanisms of her theories with something real-world operational. Worse, all of her correlated and presented evidence dances circles around nuclear mechanisms that she brushes off with a tad too little substantiation. (She had an associate killed under mysterious circumstances. Most of her work from her website to her book is rather stagnant from about the time of his death, don't address criticisms of the work, and avoid appropriate nuclear musings. I speculate that this is done to save her life. "You can either be alive & deemed bat-shit crazy by promoting Hutchison etc., or you can be dead & nobody may know how right your were.")
Neutron Nuclear DEW is the omission by both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood. In fact, nuclear means is the glaring omission by all "established movements" including A&E9/11 Truth. Neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Wood should be called a fraud, but they were for sure "gotten to" and eventually did the bidding as if they were "the infiltrators."
I recommend Dr. Wood's book for its collection of evidence and for thinking outside the box. She was pretty crafty with her book in not even expounding on theories or connecting them together in any cohesive way: "9/11 at the WTC happened exactly this way." Nope, it ain't there. But it dangles enough in front of the science-literate to keep questioning, because all fall-back theories from Dr. Wood (e.g., Dr. Jones) come up short as well... EXCEPT for neutron devices.
Rabbit-Hole Warning: Here's a little piece I wrote that goes into detail why the supposed evidence AGAINST a nuclear 9/11 are weak and why the evidence (the others ignore) stacks up into being a pretty sound case for a nuclear 9/11. One caveat is that older articles on my blog show my progression in thought.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
//
x12 Maxwell C. Bridges : "official demolition plan" that called for nukes
2014-01-21
Dear Mr. Brian Sachse,
I believe an "official demolition plan" that called for nukes was a nugget of truth from the Russian Demitri (?). In a nutshell because NYC has gone through so many rejuvenations over the centuries, you couldn't build something (monumental) in NYC without a plan for when it reached end of life. Supposedly, a nuclear plan was provided, because at the time, Davey Crocket nukes had already been around for almost a decade.
In my research leading me to my conclusions, I do not say "atomic warheads". It has too many connotations that PR and the media hype.
Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW) or neutron bombs are what you need to research.
In a nutshell on this, neutrons can be targeted to a certain degree (hence the validity of DEW), but the paradigm shift is that the aiming of neutrons is not to achieve destructive ends or casualties; it is to get them out of the way and prevent them from collateral damage, both to life forms and to companion nuclear devices.
And by using a neutron bomb configuration, the blast and heat waves are reduced to tactical levels; EMP is mostly contained within the steel WTC structure; radiation is non-lingering and dissipates within 48-72 hours.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Look up Jeff Prager's analysis of the USGS dust samples. Consider the 1st responder health ailments. Consider the radiation mitigation techniques deployed.
Myrna Haschets, you'll get a good idea of how it was achieved with my article.
//
x13 Maxwell C. Bridges : I am not going to read a long article and try to guess at what you think is relevant.
2014-01-22
Dear Ms. Myrna Haschets,
you asked me to cite a building code that conveys this requirement about a demolition plan being needed as part of the building plan, particularly for something monumental. No can do, because I'm not the one promoting it; Dimitri Khalezov is. His position:
"[A] joint US/USSR treaty called the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Explosions allowed the use of nukes for the demolition of tall buildings, specifically the WTC and Sears Tower in Chicago (which is now reportedly owned by Lucky Larry Silverstein). The New York Port Authority insisted that the architects provide a means for demolition of the buildings when their useful lives inevitably ended. The famous Maryland firm of Controlled Demolition, Inc – the Loizeaux family – came up with the nuclear demolition plan after the WTC architects could offer no other way to bring down their massively-built towers. Dimitri points out that this was a theoretical plan, made to satisfy the Port Authority that the buildings could be demolished. But the plan was there from the beginning. And it was Controlled Demolition, Inc that was put in charge of removing the debris of the 9-11 attack."
However, I think Mr. Khalezov is off-base in his theories that (if not outright limited hang-out disinformation) promote large underground nukes when clearly multiple devices were use. My wild-ass speculation is that multiple "neutron nuclear DEW" devices were deployed, and justify in my article.
The proper name you seek is "Jeff Prager" (note the spelling). He's active on facebook and can be friended. Doesn't really matter what his qualifications are, because really anybody with an open-mind and dedication can learn something (like looking at tables of data) new without formal training. Jeff Prager looked at the raw USGS data on their collected WTC dust samples and discovered the obvious anomalous elements that noone speaks of and correlations between those elements. [Nobody disputes the dust samples, elements found therein, or Mr. Prager's analysis thereof. Yet they are anomalies and can't be explained by nano-thermite.]
But what makes it more telling is that neither the USGS nor nuclear physicists within the 9/11TM did this little bit of legwork to highlight said anomalies and blatant correlations, sample to sample, which spell out a nuclear recipe.
I have to chuckle at your attitude: "I am not going to read a long article and try to guess at what you think is relevant." What do you expect me to do: re-post the entirety of that article here? Won't make no difference if you don't read "long articles." It's chunked specifically so you can jump around.
Everything in the article is relevant, because it decomposes brick-by-brick, report-by-report, the faulty argument fed to the 9/11TM and to the world that 9/11 was ~not~ nuclear, for indeed 9/11 ~was~ nuclear. It shows the stilt and skew in various 9/11 researchers' work, particularly that of Dr. Steven Jones and the government reports that he swallowed unchallenged and regurgitated unquestioned in his further steering the 9/11TM away from considering nukes.
Lenin or Stalin are credited with stating, "I care not how people vote but who counts the vote." Paraphrase to 9/11, "the government cared not what was measured in the WTC aftermath but who wrote the skewed reports." The government was going to tell us what to believe on 9/11, and nano-thermite like "DEW beams from space" were "limited hang-outs" to avoid the obvious nuclear nature.
Read it, learn something, and then come back to me with questions. You and others are welcome to continue the discussion on Blogger. It is a bit friendlier than Facebook.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
//
x14 Maxwell C. Bridges : "laser from space" still be on the table
2014-01-22
Dear Mr. James Moisson,
Given that nobody has really even addressed the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, or the leveling of WTC-4's main edifice at a line with its North Annex, I'm willing to have "laser from space" still be on the table and considered.
Afterall, it is rather silly to contemplate WTC-1 through WTC-7 being destroyed by the exact same mechanisms. They'd want back-up plans to the back-up plans, redundant overkill, and some showcase buildings to test out new technologies that their deep pockets could afford.
However, "laser from space" is a bit of a hard-sell with me for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, because all video evidence shows the towers between destroyed starting "near the top" but not at the "tippy-top" as a laser would do. The destruction was from within.
//
x15 Maxwell C. Bridges : every step of the way
2014-01-22
Dear Mr. Antii Aliias,
I'd like to believe (but can't) the assertion that a Muslim Extremist group carried out 9/11. However, this ends up being the weakest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories that the government -- every step of the way -- cannot prove.
They've released no video proof that all 19 actually got on the indicated planes.
In some cases, the flight data recorder shows no breaches to the cockpit.
None (zero) of the proported cellphone calls happened, which shoots a big gaping hole through the box-cutter contention that has had us groped at airports for over a decade now.
The speed and precision of the planes at low altitude indicates that they weren't even proported commercial aircraft.
Furthermore, dead terrorists on crashed airplanes cannot cause buildings to pulverize themselves at near free-fall speeds. The demolition had help, which would indicate access to the buildings before 9/11. Yet those scapegoated had their whereabouts noted throughout their stay, with nothing prolonged in NYC. Let's not forget that WTC-7 was a secure facility, what with the FBI, CIA, SEC, etc. being in it.
At best, those so-called "Muslim Extremists" were patsies who weren't even aware of the full scope of the operation or the true roles they were to play. Some were alive after 9/11, indicating to rational thinkers a case of stolen identifications, but the government has never changed its story about who was responsible.
And that's because it was a house of cards. Admitting error to any facet of their story calls the whole thing into question.
Bush Crime Family? You bet. You tally together all of their purposeful misdeeds -- like in conflating 9/11=Saddam=9/11 --, all of their goals (from the Prject for a New American Century), what they instigated to carry out their wars (e.g., rendition, torture, Depleted Uranium bombs, USA PATRIAT Act written and waiting in the wings...), then YES, the Bush Crime Family with Dick Cheney and the PNAC group did indeed have the mentality, motive, means, and opportunity to carry out 9/11 and attack us. ... And when the Reichtag fire, Gulf of Tonkin, and other historical instances are proven false flag or LIHOP (e.g., Pearl Harbor), then 9/11 fits the trend line.
//
x16 Maxwell C. Bridges : nano-thermite has problems
2014-01-22
Dear Aisha Khodabocus,
You are correct that nano-thermite is relatively silent and has the ability to cut through steel. It can even get its oxygen from the reaction with steel, so can burn without air.
Nano-thermite, however, has two major problem which rule it out as the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC. Problem one is that it does not have the brissance to achieve the observed pulverization. It would have to be used with something else with a much faster burn-rate and higher brissance. This is turn means that it would no longer be silent. More importantly, mixing nano-thermite with other faster chemical explosives exasperates the second problem.
Problem two is that nano-thermite cannot account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. For simplicity, assume only one hot-spot (despite there being many) and only burning four weeks (despite some burning longer). When you calculate backwards from this duration time using nano-thermite's burn-rate to arrive at an initial quantity, that quantity is OBSCENELY MASSIVE and only gets larger when faster burning materials are added to the mix. Worse, this represents the quantity unspent and leftover from its original purpose of pulverization. In short, that dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
Dr. Steven Jones even admitted that "something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite." (September 2012)
The issue is that investigation and research were purposely parked in this dead-end alley of nano-thermite, and few speculate into what "maintained those hot-spots."
Nano-thermite has another problem. It was only found in the dust samples handed to Dr. Jones by someone living in a NYC apartment. It was not found in the USGS dust samples, nor that used by Paul Lioy, nor the RJ Lee Group (investigating the Deutsches Bank that was later torn down despite having its damages fixed.) Dr. Jones also purposely never tested his dust samples for the residue of other incendiaries or explosives, using a lame "passed the sell-by date" for detection. What those other dust samples reveal are elements and correlations in elements indicating that 9/11 was nuclear. [Fission trigger fussion configured as neutron devices that targeted the neutrons in a useful fashion (DEW).]
//
x17 Maxwell C. Bridges : practical uses for nuclear devices have been contemplated for quite some time
2014-01-22
Dear Ms. Myrna Haschets,
If you desire substantive evidence of building codes and formal requirements, you are just as capable as I am of googling it. I told you through whom the incling of such belief was instilled in me: from a source that I don't trust 100%. If your research finds it wrong, won't be any skin off of my nose, because I'm not championing it. I'm just helping out a fellow poster and giving you clues on where you can look to verify or debunk it.
When you research this, supposedly it was something discovered by or leaked to Russian spies back in the Cold War and crossed the desk of Dimitri Khalezov.
But here is but one reason why you could probably assume that it is true, because practical (e.g., non-military) uses for nuclear devices have been contemplated for quite some time.
In fact while paying attention to the year, consider this article "Radionuclide Production for the Nuclear Excavation of an Isthmian Canal" by James R. Vogt from BioScience Vol. 19, No. 2 (Feb., 1969), pp. 138-139
"Abstract: Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere."
The point, Ms. Haschets, is that nuclear devices were considered for lots of different purposes for quite some time and would ~not~ have been taken off the table for a showcase event like 9/11. Moreover if you'd read my article, the foundational reports are faulty on which the 9/11TM rests in believing the error that 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ nuclear.
//
Stable URL for the above: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1294674
x18 Maxwell C. Bridges : you believe I am wrong in every case
2014-01-22
Dear Mr. Antii Aliias,
Just saying that you believe I am wrong in every case does not make it so. Where's your substantiation? Point by point? I stand by my statements until proven wrong.
With regards to the phone calls, they came up at the KSM trial. When the facts were presented in trial, evidence showed that some of the key calls NEVER connected. All were zero minutes. Moroever, the on-board phones didn't work on the flights that had them, plus cellphones at that time did not work at altitude and at those speeds; the hand-off between cell towers would have for sure dropped any calls quickly when the airplane crossed into territory not covered.
I don't rule out that the planes could have been swapped, if the passengers even got on board. The passengers could have been taken elsewhere and, under duress, forced into making calls. Voice morphing would have allowed faking of other calls, like the one to a passenger's mom. "Hi Mom. It's me, your son, Mark Bingham." Sure, siblings can sound alike on the telephone, but when you you have to give your last name to your own mom to establish your identity?
[An interesting facet about the 9/11 Commission Report: it was based on torture of KSM primarily. Under torture, you'll admit anything. KSM took responsibility for things he couldn't have possibly done.]
As for your claim that Osama admitted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Sorry, that's bullshit. The one video of "an Osama" making such a claim does not even look like the real Osama. A blatantly faked video that has no standing. [If it did have standing, the FBI would have used it to put OBL on the most-wanted list for 9/11. He was on that list for other reasons, but not for 9/11 because, in the FBI's words, they "had insufficient evidence of his involvement.]
In fact, as one starts looking at the videos of Osama, curious things happen in their forgeries, like a devote Muslim Osama's beard getting darker and darker (hair coloring is not high on a devote Muslim's list of things to do.)
I believe OBL died in 2002, as reported in Pakistan, etc. But the US government had to keep the boogey-man alive, so created these forgeries. Finally under Obama, they needed to kill the boogey-man with their fake raid that supposedly killed him on the spot and then dumped his body into the sea (against all Muslim tradition that they claimed to be upholding.) Let's not forget that those SEAL Team members involved in this operation were later conveniently killed in a mishap during another operation later, as loose ends got wrapped up.
I stick by my patsy claim of the 19 alleged hijackers. They drank alcohol, used illegal drugs, and lived with strippers. They were seen on a gambling boat sponsored by a Republican Operative (who's name escapes me but served jail time for his bribing misuse of Republican funds; he was a friend of Karl Rove and the Bushes from Texas.) They did their flight training at schools known for their CIA connections. In one case, they lived with an FBI informant. They couldn't even fly the planes in question, yet flew with such precision and speed into their targets. [Indicates to me that if they were on the plane, they were gassed and the plane was flown by remote control.]
//
x19 Maxwell C. Bridges : logical to assume something doesn't mean that such an assumption would be correct
2014-01-23
Dear Mr. Antii Aliias,
I believe that Brian Cooney is referring to the OKC bombing. He wrote "the same folkies brought down the World Trade buildings." Not only that, but the same folkies who wrote stilted reports on the OKC bombing were called into 9/11 to provide some of the initial (and very lame) explanations for what happened at the WTC. I believe one of their zingers was the "pancake theory."
Mr. Aliias, you wrote: "Given the proximity of those buildings, it would be logical to assume that the two massively tall WTC 1 and 2 buildings could cause a GREAT amount of damage to them and that some debris could fall on them as well as at them from the side."
Just because it would be logical to assume something doesn't mean that such an assumption would be correct.
Say what you will about Dr. Judy Wood, what she nails correctly is calling our attention to the nature of the destruction: pulverization. She also gives a reason why: the bathtub.
Conventional CD techniques would still leave large chunks of building that, after falling from great heights, would have lots of kinetic energy that would crack or outright break the bathtub that kept the Hudson out of the basement of not just the WTC, but via subway tubes lots of other buildings in that part of NYC.
Pulverize the contents while still high in the towers and what falls does not have the same, large, combined, impacting kinetic energy.
Moreover, when you look at the debris recognizable from the towers:
(a) at WTC-6 within the crater and without, it doesn't measure up to being sufficient to causing the crater. [Let's also not forget that WTC-5 and WTC-6 were fully engulfed in flames before the 2nd tower came down, and maybe the 1st as well, I don't recall.]
(b) at WTC-4 main edifice and North Wing, the debris was equivalent yet the former was leveled to the ground while the later remained standing. [Let's also not forget that under WTC-4 were the gold vaults that were emptied... except for the tiny bit conveniently loaded onto a tractor trailer in the underground garage, its driver having fled.]
Pulverization is also a reason why conventional chemical-based explosives and incindiaries can be ruled out as the PRIMARY mechanism of destruction. Pulverization is overkill above and beyond what was needed for the ruse of "terrorist destruction", would have been deafeningly loud, and would have introduced extremely high levels of risk in being detected in their placement that would have taken more time.
A half dozen neutron devices aiming their neutrons upwards gets you the overkill pulverization energy for free, wouldn't have to be deafeningly loud, and reduces risks of detection during the implementation.
Tritium, tritium, and tritium and the song-and-dance to lamely measure it, to stop measuring it, and then to explain it away is a major clue about 9/11 being nuclear.
//
x20 Maxwell C. Bridges : track record of agency reports being faulty is rather long
2014-01-23
Dear Mr. Antii Aliias,
You wrote: "I have not seen any reports that would lean that direction [about radiation being created.]"
Of course you wouldn't. They controlled the media. They controlled the agencies that wrote the reports. The track record of agency reports being faulty is rather long, as I'm sure you are aware. Lack of reports on radiation can't be used as the decisive argument for or against nukes.
[This argument, by the way, can be turned around. Where are the reports that show prompt, systematic sampling for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation all over the WTC and particularly near the hot-spots and show all samples at or below background levels?]
However, radiation was created, and this fact trickles out of numerous reports. Tritium, tritium, tritium is the major debunker to the premise of "no radiation." By its very definition is radiation. [Wasn't measured promptly, systematically, or everywhere. They stopped measuring it when their skewed samples were showing levels well below the EPA threshold on what constitutes a health risk. They redefined "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than what it was before 9/11.]
But more specifically, a paradigm shift must be made with regards to the nature of the nuclear devices. As brief as I can make it, a neutron device is essentially a fusion device that allows the neutrons to escape. In fact, most of its energy is consumed by the escaping highly energetic neutrons, leaving tactical blast and heat waves (and EMP). Neutrons impacting things like metal DOES CREATE RADIATION, but (a) the neutrons were aimed upwards into the sky and are very short-lived in terms of radiation, and (b) the induced radiation on building materials hit would be short lived, dissipating conservatively in 48-72 hours. [Refer to neutron devices, ERW, and Big Ivan.]
Whereas you won't find the prompt measurements in reports on radiation, what you will find are the high levels of rapid onset of ailments in the first responders who were there inside of that 48 hour window before the truly dangerous levels of radiation had dissipated.
And you will also find (neatly hinted at in Dr. Wood's books) the radiation mitigation techniques of carting in fresh dirt, spreading it out, and a few days later scooping it up again and carting it away: REPEAT. You will find tight security all over the compound. You will find destruction of evidence. You will find horseshoes, arches, and "steel doobies" in the debris that necessitate very hot heat sources. You will find hot-spots that burned for MONTHS (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material). You will find correlations in the dust samples for elements used in nuclear devices.
In conclusion, you have to look at all of the evidence, not just things that the government easily controlled (e.g., reports.)
//
x21 Maxwell C. Bridges : shatter their erroneous beliefs
2014-01-23
Dear Mr. McKee,
It does not bother me that the film would disprove the official story (OCT) without offering an alternative explanation. If the assumed intended audience are the ignorant masses, then it would make sense that getting them to shatter their erroneous beliefs about the validity of OCT would be a prequisite for anything following. First steps are first steps.
To be sure, you don't need to know the step-by-step how-to details to discover the lies in the OCT and to demand/vote for change. The public should be outraged into action from discovering the lies alone.
And as we know, when you start getting into alternative explanations, it can go all over the place with the tetris bits of evidence being twisted hither and yon (or ignored or plucked out of thin air) to support any number of contentions. And due to the destruction of evidence, much unfounded speculation enters the mix by both the duped useful idiots and the infiltrators.
So if the film leaves out the wild-ass speculation into alternative explanations, by that point the film has supposed opened the minds of viewers for them to research it and fill in the blanks on their own. It doesn't bother me.
What would bother me would be if the film did go into alternative explanations -- mini-nukes, DEW, or thermite -- and got it wrong, and couldn't explain all the evidence (so ignored large swaths of it.)
FTR, I don't promote mini-nukes, because this brings up all sorts of connotations in the public's perceptions from decades of nuclear media PR that would be flat out wrong when applied to 9/11. From blast levels to radiation fall-out, it is ripe for misperceptions to frame it wrong -- on purpose. I promote "neutron nuclear DEW" because it explains the exact configuration that both reduces the blast to tactical levels as well as the lingering radiation fall-out.
//
x22 Maxwell C. Bridges : real aircraft were flown, not holograms
2014-01-23
The speed at low-level and precision of the WTC aircraft indicate that weren't commercial aircraft and weren't flown by the patsies.
The radar data from two different sources is not only consistent between one another [even if offset], but with all videod flight paths (of the 2nd plane), as proven by 3D modeling. Dr. Fetzer got it wrong on this, and the explanations into why the radar data existed at all for holograms is exceptionally weak, unfounded, unsubstantiated.
Thus, real aircraft were flown, not holograms. [And if the technology of holograms were that advanced in 2001, we'd expect to see hologram Santa Clauses among other commercial excesses today to exploit the capability.]
However, given the speeds at low elevation that exceeded the ratings of the commercial aircraft at high altitudes and would have resulted in structural failure of such aircraft, then the aircraft were enhanced and weren't commercial. And if enhanced, then maybe also enhanced to allow the deep penetration that others want to attribute to video fakery or holograms.
The energy of the enhanced aircraft hitting the towers has a velocity squared term in it. The Mythbuster's rocket sled-into-car and the Sandia Aircraft-into-wall tests show what debilitating energy that velocity squared term does when velocity is large (~500 mph). Thus, it no longer surprises me that the enhanced aircraft would SEEM to penetrate the towers as if a road-runner cartoon.
//
x23 Maxwell C. Bridges : don't let me dissuade anyone from reading Dr. Wood's book, "Where Did The Towers Go?"
2014-01-23
Don't let me dissuade anyone from reading Dr. Wood's book, "Where Did The Towers Go?" I have it. I recommend it. BUT IT ALSO HAS DISINFORMATION AND OMISSIONS.
You'd think she could at least answer known criticisms of her work (e.g., website) when she re-purposed that information into her book. She gives nuclear means short-shrift and the bum's rush on her website and book. Her book doesn't offer theories, just lots of dangling innuendo that she she does not connect into any cohesive theory on how it was done. She can't power any of that innuendo with anything real-world operational.
I recommend it, though, because (a) it teaches people to view all the evidence, (b) it teaches people to think outside the box, and (c) it has the best collection of evidence that 9/11 was nuclear.
I use the phrase "neutron nuclear DEW" to describe it, but this necessitates changing perceptions on (a) neutron bombs, (b) nuclear devices, and (c) DEW.
In a nutshell, the DEW portion aims the highly energetic neutrons being released from the neutron device in a manner to get them out of the way (e.g., upwards) so they don't cause collateral damage to life forms or induce radiation in things. The configuration as a neutron device reduces the blast and heat waves to tactical levels, as well as the EMP. The neutron configuration also does not result in large levels of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation, and what does occur dissipates quickly (48-72 hours). Alas, first responders were doing their jobs inside that time frame, so were impacted by such. Tritium is the evidence of a fusion device (of which a neutron device is), and the dust provides ample evidence when properly analyzed of fission (e.g., fission-triggered fusion in a neutron device).
In short, Mr. Aj McNelis, a nuclear device explains what turned the internal content to dust. However, I'll note that it did not dustify the steel to the extent alluded to by Dr. Wood, and the debris pile did account for most of it. Some damning info came from the RJ Lee group who analyzed the dust (for an insurance company looking into the damage to Deutsches Bank) in the large percentage of tiny iron spheres it its dust. The heat of nukes could do that, but only unproven OBSCENELY MASSIVE quantities of chemical based incendiaries/explosives (including nano-thermite) could come close, and even then such chemical means would have been DEAFENINGLY LOUD.
//
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
x24 Maxwell C. Bridges : neutron nuclear DEW
2014-01-23
Dear Mr. Aliias,
The "neutron nuclear DEW" devices were probably situated about six or more per tower in the core area. Given that the highly energetic escaping neutrons were aimed (e.g., DEW) upwards, this would also be the primary direction of most of the blast and heat waves, which video evidence kind of supports when you see the "fountain of debris" that the towers became.
Because they were neutron devices, the lion's share of the energy was released as the escaping highly energetic neutrons. This reduced the blast and heat waves (and EMP) to tactical levels. In fact, due to the design, placement, and aiming of energy, the blast wave was contained in a relatively small area WITHIN the towers.
If nano-thermite was involved at all, I speculate it was used on the outer wall assemblies to blow the bolts milliseconds after the neutron devices did their deeds in blasting mostly upwards. The outer steel wall assemblies helped help contain the flash, the blast, and the EMP.
Indeed, a nuclear reaction would cause issues with electronic equipment from the EMP. However, this was mostly contained within the inner core steel and the steel wall assemblies except for what might slip out through window slits and falling debris.
Most "survivors" and witnesses where shielded by buildings and things. The public had been pushed back out of the area. Thus, their electronic devices were out of range, out of line-of-sight, and not affected. Most failed electronic devices (e.g., car radios) were deemed scrap for other reasons, like dust, fire, and debris falling on vehicle.
However, when you think about the complaints of the first responders with regards to radios not working, part of this is certainly due to Mayor Guillani not upgrading them and part probably due to line-of-sight vicinity to escaping EMP.
EMT Patricia O. testifies to observing the lights inside of WTC-6 popping off as if a Christmas tree light display, before "security personnel" there shoved her out the door saying she could not take refuge there. She observed cars popping off -- one with a door popping out of its frame and off of its hinges and slamming her into a wall. EMP induces Eddy Currents in metal; great enough Eddy currents can cause things to burn like paint, plastic door handles, rubber seals, etc. It may have expanded the metal on the car door that popped out to hit her.
Design of the device (which helps determines amplitude of EMP), distance from the detonation, and metal/building shielding are all factors to mitigate EMP side-effects.
Read my article. It makes the case. Commenting there on blogger might be easier.
//
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
x25 Maxwell C. Bridges : cheap trick and a distraction
2014-01-23
Dear Ms. Haschets,
Your comment "[i]n the absence of substantive evidence to back up the presumption that there was a requirement for this demolition plan to be in place prior to building..." is nothing more than a CHEAP TRICK and a DISTRACTION from the salient point about 9/11 nukes.
It's a strawman intended to sweep 9/11 neutron devices off of the table without due consideration.
Appending the "guilt by association" loonery to it doesn't reflect well on your debate skills either.
I don't use such claims of a proposed nuclear demolition plan in my nuclear case, and it's not needed, either. The evidence is clearly there "for those with eyes to see". Even the tilt and skew by AE9/11 darling Dr. Jones and his nano-thermite can't hide it, and really only exasperates the problem for those with any scientific backgrounds.
The existence (or not) of a nuclear demolition plan in place for the WTC at its inception doesn't affect in the least my argument that 9/11 was nuclear, in part because I'M NOT THE ONE MAKING SUCH CLAIMS. You wanted to know how this notion came about as introduced by another poster? I gave you the reference (a source that I don't trust 100%) that you lacked the fortitude to research further to validate or debunk on your own.
Let it be known that you lacked the fortitude to read my article, "because, boo-hoo, it was too long."
Phewy on you, Ms. Haschets.
//
x26 Maxwell C. Bridges : lockstep with the agenda
2014-01-23
Dear Mr. Aliias,
Are we in agreement that the media is controlled and marched lockstep with the agenda of the powers-that-be?
For the record, the link you provided from ABC of OBL supposedly admitting to his involvement with 9/11 is precisely the video that stars an imposter. The guy doesn't even look like OBL: nose too broad and flat; face too fleshly; gray in his beard doesn't match gray of other videos. Nice how it neatly wraps into the fairy tale of the official conspiracy theory (OCT).
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877
Don't believe me? Compare the fake OBL in the above video with the image in this other piece whose link you posted:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/terrorism/july-dec04/binladen_10-29.html
NOT THE SAME PERSON!!!
Your tax dollars at work: the government spreading disinformation through the compliant mass media to get the masses to believe what the government wants it to believe.
As for the telephone calls, I'm on the fence but teetering to them being faked as well, or at least not taking place under the circumstances described (e.g., en route to the WTC or DC).
Too many things do NOT agree with the OCT, and it isn't helped by the stonewalling of information and preventing evidence from making it into the public domain. Don't believe me? Airports have had security cameras since at least the 1980's as I recall, yet where's the videos of ALL 19 HIJACKERS going through security? Why hasn't it been released? Or what about the videos from different vantage points of the flight hitting the Pentagon? Why haven't they been released? (Because the plane didn't hit the Pentagon; it flew over it.)
However, the above aren't really points that I want to argue. I'm a one-trick pony on 9/11 nukes at the WTC.
//
x27 Maxwell C. Bridges : the glaring ones that shred the official conspiracy theory to pieces
2014-01-24
Dear Mr. Aliias,
{edited}
To the question about why the towers were demolished from the top-down. A building can be demolished top-down, bottom-up, middle-up-and-down, center-sideways-up-and-down, etc. It is a matter of how much explosives ($) you're going to use, what goals you're trying to achieve (like landing it in a footprint or in a certain space), and what effects you need to create (like for Hollywood or Las Vegas events). Conventionally, sure, most are done bottom-up by blowing out the foundation supports first and then letting gravity do most of the destruction. Saves on the cost of explosives.
With regards to the towers and speculating a bit into motives, goals, and desired effects, a conventional bottom-up demolition would have been a dead give-away. Given the height of the towers, any mis-timing of the explosions could get it leaning and then falling over like a tree a bit unpredictably and into things "not part of the plan." A large in-tact chuck of building falling from great heights would have lots of kinetic energy that could break or crack the bathtub that held out the Hudson from the WTC basements and, via the subway tubes, the basements of many other NYC buildings. So as part of the planning, they recognized that demolishing it starting towards the top aided the predictability on where pieces would go. In this sense, the airplane impacts were the plausible cover story, and this in fact plays out in the official NIST reports that stopped their analysis at a (lame) explanation for the INITIATION OF THE COLLAPSE and did not cover any of the anomalies observed in the destruction and its aftermath.
What sort of anoamlies? The overall collapse times were between 11 and 13 seconds, yet free-fall from the top was 9.8 seconds. Therefore, the collapse times were actually within the margin of error to be considered near free-fall. Yet the buildings were pulverized, which is a huge energy sink and should have significantly slowed the destruction. Physics states that you can't have near free-fall collapses and pulverization of content without adding energy. Material was ejected laterally at great speeds and covered great distances, which is yet another energy sink implying added energy.
The top 20 or so stories of one of the towers began to lean over in the early phases of its demolition. Had there been no extra energy added, physics states that its angular momentum would have had it topple outside the footprint of the towers (path of greatest resistance) and fallen through the path of least resistance (air) to cream neighoring things. Not only was that angular momentum suddenly arrested, but the roof-line "accordianed" into approximately the "crash level" at a rate 2/3 gravitational acceleration, meaning that suddenly that whole 20 story block structure lost 2/3 of its structural support to allow such a thing to happen.
Massive amounts of dust were generated in the earliest phases of each tower's demise, which gravity and kinetic energy cannot explain.
Many more anomalies exist, but these are the glaring ones that shred the official conspiracy theory to pieces.
//
x28 Maxwell C. Bridges : lots of dangling innuendo
2014-01-24
Dear Ms. Marta Pirnat,
It is well that you promote Dr. Wood's book "Where did the Towers Go?", for I recommend it, too. It is a great collection of evidence that any theory-du-jour needs to address.
However, don't go getting ahead of yourself in proclaiming that "Dr Judy Wood is the only investigation that focuses SOLELY on 'empirical evidence.'" She was "got to" and became a disinformation vehicle. Nuggets of truth must be sought. She gives a major clue by stating (paraphrased): "Listen to the evidence and don't get distracted (by her words)."
Her book doesn't promote theories, just lots of dangling innuendo that she doesn't connect together into a cohesive whole. In more than one case, her comments and leading statements are wrong. Here's three examples. (1) She points out how the engine of a particular fire engine was melted. No. The engine in that particular model was set back closer to the axel, so what she points out as melted wasn't. (2) She points out how a police car was torched at the bridge. No. The police car was torched elsewhere [with pictures documenting this fact] and was towed to the bridge to get it out of the way. All of her speculation about energy zapping things at the bridge are wrong. (3) She points out how a ladder truck had its ladder and front end wilted. No. That truck had a large piece of building land on it, and the picture was taken after it was removed. (4) She talks about the spire disintegrating based on one perspective. Yet when other videos from other perspectives are studied, that spire telescopes and falls over. It is only in that one perspective that it looks to be disintegrating.
Dr. Wood's book re-hashed things from her website yet corrected very little of her mistakes, many of which -- like the above -- should have been known or pointed out to her. She doesn't address any of the criticism of things from her website. Dr. Jenkins had some valid criticism (and some skewed invalid stuff, too.)
Dr. Wood promotes Hutchison way too much. I'm on the fence as to its validity, leaving the door open for it to be proved. Yet there is a difference between validity and applicability, and she hasn't proven the latter for 9/11.
Furthermore, although September Clues has its own issues in being a disinformation vehicle, it does have some nuggets of truth. For example, some imagery manipulation did happen (just not the extreme extent that they promote), and the media was and has been complicit in the ruse from the beginning. I can think of two or three images off the top of my head that Dr. Wood used that may have been manipulated: (1) fireman walking over "beam on fire"; (2) window of broken glass framing the images of patriotic firemen standing in a puddle raising a flag; (3) one of her satillite images supposedly showing dust cloud from space; (4) the images of hot-spots [she used a government report unchallenged].
I take issue with Dr. Wood because she gave nuclear considerations the bums rush. She makes a big deal out of dirt being carted in, spread out, then a few days later, piled together and carted away: blatant radiation mitigation techniques. But does she talk nukes? No. It doesn't take much research to discover unique nuclear mechanisms, or unique configurations of known devices (e.g., neutron bomb) that would have achieved the observed effects. Hell, she doesn't mention tritium, doesn't mention the 1st responder ailments, doesn't put into perspective the energy required for the pulverization, doesn't power her DEW devices with anything real-world operational...
The true value of Dr. Wood's book is soley in the collection of images. It is worth the price of her book just for the correlation of images to map positions.
What is also noteworthy is that nobody from the 9/11TM -- not Dr. Steven Jones, not Dr. Jenkins, not Dr. Herrit, not Jonathon Cole, not David Chandler -- has even cracked the cover of her book to debunk it page-by-page, image-by-image. They won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Why? Because mixed in with the stilt-and-skew, it has copious amounts of truth that remain valid. If they wade even part-way into it, their own theories will be found wanting in not being able to be address the truth that remains. It is better for the disinformation compaign (to avoid nukes) for them to sweep the whole work off the table as if it is "loony, crazy, nutty." It's not, despite being a disinformation vehicle, and it many areas it isn't far from the truth and certainly points out things that astute thinkers must consider.
//
x29 Maxwell C. Bridges : a force of nature
2014-01-24
Dear Mr. Aliias,
Drop a 10 pound weight from a fitness club from the height of your chest onto your foot, and you may sustain a serious injury. If that 10 pounds was in the form of distributed dust particles, you'd probably walk away without a limp.
The towers were cascading pulverized debris and dust radially like a fountain. Material was ejected laterally at great speeds great distances. These are major energy sinks that gravity alone cannot account for, particularly if the towers were also collapsing at near free-fall speeds.
Due to the nature of the debris and what was found within the WTC-6 crater, on the WTC-5 roof, on the WTC-5 leveled main edifice, it was insufficient to cause the observed final destruction of those other buildings. The other buildings were assisted as well.
A force of nature causing a structure to rise before it fell would be true only if it was added energy (e.g., from a destructive device).
//
x30 Maxwell C. Bridges : a robbery, a looting, and a financial boon-doggle
2014-01-24
Dear Mr. Aliias,
9/11 was first and foremost a robbery, a looting, and a financial boon-doggle. It is unclear how many billions of dollars of gold were in the vaults below WTC-4 before 9/11. After 9/11, the vault doors were mangled. The gold that was recovered wasn't in the vault; it was loaded into a tractor trailer truck, abandoned by the driver in the underground parking structures.
WTC-7 held SEC records of on-going investigations into investment improprieties. (Many defendents in such instances were Bush supporters.) Destroying the WTC-7 and its records halted those investigations.
Donald Rumsfeld announced on 9/10 (the day before) that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 TRILLION dollars. The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) had been investigating this. The renovated wing of Pentagon only had one group move into its spaces prior to 9/11: the ONI and all its records. After 9/11, no more mention of those missing trillions as the war drums were beat for Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US found the Black Eagle gold stolen from the Jews by the Nazi's after WWII. Instead of re-patriating it with its rightful owners (or heirs), the US used it to fund black operations. The Japanese stole gold from the Chinese and hid it in the Phillipines. The US found this after the war too, but instead of re-patriating it, they used it to fund black operations. It was called the Marco's fund, and Marco was the man appointed by the US over it. When was Marco disposed? About the time we needed the money
George H.W. Bush, being of a banking and intelligence background, took a loan out against these funds in the late 1980's, early 1990's, at the time the wall came down. The funds were used to buy up Russian gas, coal, and mineral companies and to drive their economy through their markets into bankruptcy. Those loans came due about 9/11/2001.
Under the aspices of stabilizing the stock market in the aftermath of 9/11, the SEC rules on the stock exchanged were relaxed in the week(s) just after re-opening. This effectively laundered billions (or trillions) of ill-got gains, covering the loan and other misdeeds.
Let us not forget that put options were placed on the two airlines involved with 9/11. Although these were never collected, they indicate both that 9/11 was a financial scam and that financial players were involved who had inside information.
An interesting facet of all this is that this laundering of billions put the same into circulation for the banks, and then some. Fractional reserves ment that banks had literally hundreds times that amount to loan out. This is what caused the housing bubble, where banks were loaning to anybody and everybody, even if they really couldn't afford it. Of course, they knew this bubble would burst, which is why much of the lending was as ARMs (adustable rate mortgages), so that when things turned, those with the mortgage wouldn't be able to afford the new payments and would default. Thus, those with the money can and did swoop in to buy brick-and-mortar establishments for pennies on the dollar.
In other words, the 9/11 looting could almost be seen as part of a bigger plan to loot the wealth of individuals and to consolidate this into the 1%-ers hands through financial trickery.
On top of this we have war profiteering (small and large scale, like Halliburton) and the US plans to control oil, gas, and heroin in the Middle East. The Taliban had almost eradicated the production of poppies for heroin. Yet after the Taliban was disposed, heroin production reached all time highs... And the US got the natural gas pipeline it wanted through the middle of Afghanistan that they were previously denied.
Oil can be controlled by turning it on, and by turning it off. The media hyped the government message that 9/11=Saddam=9/11 in order to do the illegal invasion of Iraq, whereby before hand the oil companies had met in secret with VP Cheney and essentially divided up the spoils of the Iraqi oil fields. The media hyped the government disinfo message that these oil fields (e.g., turning on the oil) would "pay for the invasion." In reality, the government turned OFF the Iraqi oil (partly through war destruction) while Saudi Arabia "graciously" offered to increase its production to meed increased demand. This was one of many paybacks to the Saudi's for giving us most of the 19 patsies who were Saudi.
On this note, the Saudi connection is deep and intertwined with the Bush family. If OBL was a terrorist, he was our terrorist. And interestly, OBL got everything he, as a terrorist, every wanted from the US. He wanted the permanent US military presence out of the the holy land (Saudi Arabia), and it was done when we established bases in Iraq.
In summation, if you don't follow the money, you won't understand 9/11, why it was done, and how deep-seated it was desired by all financial players involved in either keeping the status quo or making the status quo STRONGER (from the perspective of the 1%-ers.)
Above is the money motivation. They needed to make the payback of the borrowed fund (and other funds probably from drug dealing) legitimate. They needed no questions asked about the laundering, about the missing Pentagon funds, about stalled SEC investigations. 9/11 was not only a major pay-back to those that put the NeoCon's in office, but it was the Pearl Harbor needed to rally the American people to support the PNAC (Project for a New American Century = NeoCon) plan to re-shape the military, to re-shape the Middle East, etc.
They spelled out what they were going to do in 1999 in their PNAC document. Once they STOLE office, they acted on it.
//
x31 Maxwell C. Bridges : cover-up of the nuclear demolition, easy to do
2014-01-24
Dear Ms. Haschets wrote: "Love the logic, the government can't fake a good OBL interview, but they can fake (cover up) the nuclear demolition of three buildings."
Apples and oranges.
No, it is I who "love" your logic and poor debating skills. So, do you agree that the OBL video was faked? (If you research the matter, there are other instances of OBL being faked in media hype handed to them by the administration to keep the boogey-man alive, as noted by how he got younger and had less gray in his beard. Even the videos of OBL at his Pakistan compound aren't all that conclusive that it was him.)
As for the cover-up of the nuclear demolition, easy to do. First thing you need (thanks to the NSA) is dirt on someone as a last resort so that you can control them. With any luck, you won't need it, because the player will see that it is in his own personal best-interest and that of any agency or institution that they might represent to march along with the war drums.
9/11 nuclear revelations would have (figuratively) nuclear fallout consequences on the status quo, that would, could, and should rock those very agencies, institutions, even government to the ground -- not just a full house cleaning, but a breaking up of the US into autonomous regions. At the stroke of a vote, the 50 stated USA and everything "federal" is gone, corporations no longer considered persons, big banks & the federal reserve no longer calling the shots...
The motivation would be very strong even in new actors on the scene to STFU about any truth that they might know or suspect. President Bush flat out stated: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Whistleblowers were retaliated against in very heavy-handed ways, sending messages to others of thinking of doing the same thing.
Alphabet agency infiltration of media is known, but also of movements and Truth groups. Even this one.
//
x32 Maxwell C. Bridges : free-fall was not inevitable
2014-01-24
Dear Mr. Aliis wrote: "I still have not seen anything to direct me to think that WTC 7 was a controlled demoliton."
It is all in the simple-ass high school physics. Although the building was 47 stories tall, NIST only contemplated the first 18 stories of destruction because this is what was observable on videos. They broke these 18 stories in three phases.
Phase 1 was about 1-1/2 stories.
Phase 2 was about 8 stories (100+ feet).
Phase 3 was the remaining 10 or so stories.
Although phases 1 and 3 were slower than gravitational acceleration, phase 2 was indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration (which means free-fall). Free-fall doesn't happen unless there is ZERO structure and ZERO resistance in the way of the falling mass to slow it.
How does a solid, over-designed building (not hit by any aircraft) SUDDENLY transition from standing into 100+ feet of free-fall WITHOUT something acting on it to get the structure and resistance OUT OF THE WAY? Energy had to be added.
Doesn't matter that the side may have had extensive damage. Even with damage and even if we say for the sake of discussion that collapse was inevitable, FREE-FALL WAS NOT INEVITABLE.
At this point, I turn snippy. Learn some rudimentary high school Newtonian physics and apply it here. I suggest googling the videos of high school physics teacher David Chandler on the subject. Get with the program. Failure to do so will not be looked upon favorably by me in any future discussions, because it will point out either an infiltrator status or a serious lack of intelligence.
//
x33 Maxwell C. Bridges : bottle rocket roulette
2014-01-25
Dear Mr. Aliias,
You are welcome to have your theories, but that doesn't make them right. The second one in particular that tries to explain the sudden change of direction of debris piece "A" going in a parabolic arc laterally from the towers that suddenly changes direction on the order of 90 degrees in an accelerating fashion as if propelled. David Chandler, the high school physics teacher, highlights this very well in his video series. I highly encourage you to google them and study, because you are exposing lack on knowledge in basic Newtonian physics.
Your second theory says that piece A changed direction by hitting another piece of debris B. The video in question clearly shows all debris being ejected at the same acceleration. Moreover as mentioned, the video in question (that you'll soon enough discover) has the debris piece "A" literally acelerating away at 90 degrees from its previous arc, as if it were a bottle rocket at the moment the lit fuse hits the accelerant.
[A stupid game we used to play in high school was like "bottle rocket roulette." We didn't have a bottle because we weren't drinkers, so we would light the fuse and throw the bottle rocket into the air tumbling end over end. It was anybody's guess which way the bottle rocket would accelerate once the fuse reached the payload, sometimes right back at you.]
As for theory one, you won't be defending it anymore once you see the actual video.
You wrote: "I do not believe from anything that I have seen that this is an action done by our own government."
You are entitled to your erronous beliefs.
You wrote: "I have watched multiple videos of the collapsing of the towers and have not seen any evidence of detonations of any kind. I looked for different directional changes that are unnatural, and I just didn't see any."
If you've watched only multiple videos of the collapsing of the towers, then I suggest you expand your set of samples by reviewing the work of David Chandler, an AE911 Truth Member.
For the record, you don't have to see evidence of detonations of any kind to recognize energy being added to the physics equation to enable buildings to pulverize themselves while accelerating to the ground at near free-fall speeds.
You wrote: "I did not see the tower rise up at the top before it fell down."
What does this have to do with anything? Might be based on a pre-conceived notion about what side-effects a controlled demolition exhibits, and particular those that use chemical-based explosives and incendiaries. Doesn't necessarily have to apply to the tactical nature of the neutron DEW nuclear devices that I champion.
You wrote: "I also looked at the speed of the buildings' collapse, but I have not seen anything with it that doesn't make sense to me or my NASA engineer family member."
From what your statements reflect about your scientific understanding of basic high school physics (and could be learned by watching David Chandler's videos), I'm not surprised that everything makes sense to you. As for your NASA engineer family member, he or she knows which side their bread is buttered on and what acknowledging the physics and thence whistleblowing would mean to their NASA career, so it boils down to how well you can read their poker faces when they bluff and tell you half lies.
You wrote: "Believe me, I am really looking hard for something but I don't see it. Maybe I see too many theories that just stretch it in in so many different directions."
Come to the revelation at your own pace, Mr. Aliias, but do keep searching. The key to your seeing the light is the physics.
To your point about theories being stretched in so many different directions, true. Nothing wrong with that, and is in fact required. Why? Because disinformation was purposely injected into our beliefs that would have us lay anchor and never move from a safe harbor of "the government does no wrong" (or "super duper nano-thermite.") When an existing theory about what caused the hot-spots becomes decisively inadequate due to physics calculating unreasonable massively obscene quantities, then the theories should be stretch, altered, changed, re-written, and abandoned for ones that have more elements of truth by being able to address more of the evidence.
You wrote: "There are main groups in the government that I can see, and I do not mean Republican or Democrat. Military/CIA/FBI and the elected officials with their special hires. Military/CIA/FBI side is very smart and very capable and are unlikely to leave as many loose ends."
These are contradictory statements. On the one hand, you say how the military/CIA/FBI ("agency") could accomplish it, and on the other you imply that such an agency is so smart and so capable, that they would unlikely to leave as many loose ends as the Truth Movement keeps exposing, harping on, and making look bad.
I'm not going to argue against your beliefs about agency infallibility. For the sake of discussion, let's assume it is true. Therefore, what you need to consider is that they purposely did stupid things, executed plans imperfectly, and have been uttering blatantly stupid lies all this time for the Truth Movement to grasp onto. Yep. Some normal cog within the agency system recognized right from the wrong that they were ordered to be doing, but being so insignificant in the agency machine and knowing what such revelations could do to their agency career, they rationalized with God about plausible deniability later at the Gates of Heaven. Divine inspiration led them to make mistakes, which includes their over-confidence in exceptionally well coordinating four hijackings that weren't intercepted and hit 2 targets in NYC with exceptional accuracy while traveling impossible speeds for the alleged type of aircraft at that altitude.
//
x34 Maxwell C. Bridges : originally from Frank Greening, re-purposed on the Debunking 9/11 site, and tossed at me by disinfo agent
2014-01-25
Mr. Aliias, I thank you so much for that Debunking link. http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
You see, four years ago I went up against "GuitarBill" (now a regular on the dispicable blog "Screw Loose Change"). He boasted of having advanced degrees in mathematics and minors in physics, but on more than one occasion he slipped up and got his actual knowledge of the same rubbed into his nose.
Reading your link, I now know where GuitarBill got his "physics" that he had set against me to trap me on 2010-01-06. Thanks to you, I learn that it was originally from Frank Greening, re-purposed on the Debunking 9/11 site, and tossed at me by disinfo agent GuitarBill as if the words/physics were his own.
So I guess the debunking I did of it then gets triple scoring!
Disclaimer: The context from the following link is from other times, places, and participants on the internet. Particularly when viewed out of context today, I'm not proud of the language I used used then. However, in the larger historical context of the participants, it was appropriate and comparatively mild.
In providing the link today, I'm sorry to say that this is only my half of the context, preserved because I knew at the time that the databases of others shouldn't be relied upon to save my words. Such a pity that my pain-stakingly preserved links to the original context are no longer 100% accurate due to subsequent "database upgrades" at AlterNet.Org. [The links will take you to the top-level article, but the URL arguments originally took you to an exact location within the discussion served up by the old database. That database was taken down and is replaced with newer Disqus technology that did not import anything from the old. And thus we see how the message gets controlled... eventually.]
- http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2010/01/f-in-math-f-in-physics-and-b-done-with.html
I normally do not enourage people to explore my blog, because I know they are rabbit-hole links, narrow in focus, and very, very repetitive. I will make an exception in your case, Mr. Aliias, and strongly encourage you to follow the rabbit hole link and scroll around, jump around.
You see, in my debates with those that I deemed disinfo agents, when the carousel ride would start a new cycle on the same topic, I could easily expose them at their games by offering a go-to link to the starting point of one of the previous spin cycles, but within the context of the forum in question.
Today, my patience has grown thin. When I see you traipsing over the same ground and the same arguments as I've gone over before, I cannot resist the temptation to give you go-to links by my trysts of yore in the hopes of saving us both tons of time in the back-and-forth exchanges.
Briefly summarized, "the response about free fall speeds" that you provided has errors in its math and reasoning.
As for your second posting about WTC-7, that's a nice quote from the NIST report, no? Take a good, long, hard look at this:
"* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"
That's 2.25 seconds of free-fall in a stage of collapse that was entered into with a head-start, which is why this is 8 stories or 100+ feet. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE to suddenly transition from 100% resistance to 0% resistance.
//
x35 Maxwell C. Bridges : it all depends on who "they" are who found NT
2014-01-26
Relating things to Mr. Jonathan Cole's video: In a highly coordinated, redundant, over-planned, overkill operation like 9/11, it is not hard to imagine that nano-thermite (NT) could have played a role. However, the video from Mr. Jonathon Cole drops a tad too much innuendo and emphasis on NT to let viewers believe that NT was the primary mechanism of WTC destruction.
For example at about 10:00 in the video, it brings up how the "USGS and independent physicists analyzed plenty of dust collected by some inside buildings near Ground Zero" (as in Janette MacKinlay's apartment.) Mr. Cole says that in addition to tiny iron spheres, "~they~ found active nano-thermite."
It all depends on who "they" are who found NT. "They" weren't (A) the USGS, (B) the RJ Lee group who was called in by an insurance company to analyze the Deutsches Bank building, or (C) Paul Lioy et al who used only three samples from East of the WTC collected late to try to explain away alpha and beta activity. None of these groups A, B, or C reported nano-thermite or residue of other chemical explosives in the dust. A & C did tabulate things like Uranium in the dust, but made no effort to explain its presence, let alone that this, along with correlation between other elements, was a recipe for nuclear methods. Glaring omissions.
"They" in this case was Dr. Steven Jones (and company) primarily from dust samples given to him by Ms. MacKinlay. In addition to ~not~ looking at the tabulated results of the USGS dust samples (by far the most systematic and thorough) for patterns and correlations that should have been second nature for a nuclear physicist, Dr. Jones also never tested his own samples for the presence of other explosives or incendiaries even late in the game when it was brought to the attention of AE911Truth, despite by that time nano-thermite coming up short in explaining anomalous 9/11 features and Dr. Jones hinting that RDX or something else would had to have been used with NT. The lame excuse given by Dr. Jones and Mr. Gregg Roberts was that maybe the ability to detect such elements had passed the "sell-by" date, therefore the opposition would have a PR field day promoting "gravity driven pile-drivers." (Not to worry, because the science-literate in the 9/11TM would recognize the need for additional energy to balance the Newtonian equations, so would continue looking for the true source thereof.)
Extremely high temperatures were reached during the WTC pulverization, which explains the tiny iron spheres found everywhere including the lobby of the Deutsches Bank building. Whereas NT can reach high temperatures (~2788 C), even the experiments prove that NT can not reach them quick enough to account for the WTC destruction. Moreover if deployed, NT would have been more localized and strategic (at joints, bolts, cutting spot) and would have been incapable of heating neighboring beams end-to-end to achieve these arches in the short time allocated.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsP7M-3aYJoqCGw86yOT_uzcSR9M2O-gcqbQGXwc_n0lRVDEZ6grIJA6TnvT2LBRHtBI717Y9PkOCb8W9NvsXdIdmfyYoyvFULfye_2VM5IX1LEkn6L2T-D_6Cvdqbg0Vdw31zyittx8U/s1600/DSCN0941_s.jpg
Nuclear fusion (of which neutron bombs are a variant) peaks at about ~799,999,726 C, or only about 287,000 times hotter than NT or 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams end-to-end VERY QUICKLY into a bendable state.
The following link takes you to the section "Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite." It does the simple-ass math of high school chemistry to explain why NT is a farce in terms of being attributed as the primary destructive mechanisms.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18
//
x36 Maxwell C. Bridges : we disagree whether such enemies are foreign or domestic
2014-01-26
Dear Mr. Richard Tremblay wrote: "I still believe terrorist slammed the planes into [the WTC buildings] but that the US botched the rescue or maybe made it worst on purpose1."
Then we are in agreement about the terrorists. Where we disagree is whether such enemies are foreign or domestic. I don't rule out foreign involvement to get the patsies and whatnot.
But rational thinkers cannot rule out domestic involvement. The put options against the airlines involved is a glaring clue. The speed and precision of the aircraft were impossible at that altitude in the claimed aircrafts by poor pilots, and even experienced pilots would have trouble hitting the towers at the recorded speeds (~500 mph). It screams of structurally enhanced aircraft with more powerful engines and computer assistance in the navigation. Not something the named patsies could do.
Given that the patsies were monitored during their stay here, they lacked the lengthy visitations in NYC (to secure facilities, no less) to prep the WTC buildings for such spectacular pulverization. So, anyway you look at, stopping the search for culprits at 19 patsies who allegedly boarded planes is a farce. More were involved.
//
x37 Maxwell C. Bridges : none of these groups reported nano-thermite or residue of other chemical explosives in the dust
2014-01-26
(A) the USGS, (B) the RJ Lee group who was called in by an insurance company to analyze the Deutsches Bank building, or (C) Paul Lioy et al who used only three samples from East of the WTC collected late to try to explain away alpha and beta activity: None of these groups A, B, or C reported nano-thermite or residue of other chemical explosives in the dust. A & C did tabulate things like Uranium in the dust, but made no effort to explain its presence, let alone that this, along with correlation between other elements, was a recipe for nuclear methods. Glaring omissions.
Dr. Steven Jones (and company) allegedly found NT primarily from dust samples given to him by Ms. MacKinlay. In addition to ~not~ looking at the tabulated results of the USGS dust samples (by far the most systematic and thorough) for patterns and correlations that should have been second nature for a nuclear physicist, Dr. Jones also never tested his own samples for the presence of other explosives or incendiaries even late in the game when it was brought to the attention of AE911Truth, despite by that time nano-thermite coming up short in explaining anomalous 9/11 features and Dr. Jones hinting that RDX or something else would had to have been used with NT. The lame excuse given by Dr. Jones and Mr. Gregg Roberts was that maybe the ability to detect such elements had passed the "sell-by" date, therefore the opposition would have a PR field day promoting "gravity driven pile-drivers." (Not to worry, because the science-literate in the 9/11TM would recognize the need for additional energy to balance the Newtonian equations, so would continue looking for the true source thereof.)
Extremely high temperatures were reached during the WTC pulverization, which explains the tiny iron spheres found everywhere including the lobby of the Deutsches Bank building. Whereas NT can reach high temperatures (~2788 C), even the experiments prove that NT can not reach them quick enough to account for the WTC destruction. Moreover if deployed, NT would have been more localized and strategic (at joints, bolts, cutting spot) and would have been incapable of heating neighboring beams end-to-end to achieve these arches in the short time allocated.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsP7M-3aYJoqCGw86yOT_uzcSR9M2O-gcqbQGXwc_n0lRVDEZ6grIJA6TnvT2LBRHtBI717Y9PkOCb8W9NvsXdIdmfyYoyvFULfye_2VM5IX1LEkn6L2T-D_6Cvdqbg0Vdw31zyittx8U/s1600/DSCN0941_s.jpg
Nuclear fusion (of which neutron bombs are a variant) peaks at about ~799,999,726 C, or only about 287,000 times hotter than NT or 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams end-to-end VERY QUICKLY into a bendable state.
The following link takes you to the section "Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite." It does the simple-ass math of high school chemistry to explain why NT is a farce in terms of being attributed as the primary destructive mechanisms.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18
//
x38 Maxwell C. Bridges : not the alleged commercial aircraft
2014-01-26
Dear Ms. Norma Rae Hostetler,
I used to be a died-in-the-wool no-planer, thanks to September Clues, until I discovered the errors in their ways and their deliberate skew.
Real planes hit the towers. However, they were not the alleged commercial aircraft.
Two sets of radar data (albeit consistently offset by like 1,800 feet) agree with one another, and with nearly all video footage taken of the 2nd aircraft, particularly when overlaid onto 3D models of NYC that demonstrates a consistent flight path. This was the key to get me off my no-planer bent.
However, a nugget of truth that I preserve from September Clues is that the velocity of the 2nd aircraft at 3/4 mile above sea level exceeded the maximum ratings of the commercial aircraft at high altitude without structural failure and other badness happening. At near sea level, though? The engines of the alleged aircraft could not even have pushed the aircraft through the heavy air, let alone the structure of the aircraft withstand the heavy resistive air without wings falling of AT THE VELOCITY confirmed by radar and videos (>500 mph).
The thing to note from the Sandia Test Aircraft (jet into wall) and the Mythbuster's video (rocket sled into car) is that a velocity-squared term plays into the energy equation. When the velocity is very large, so is energy, which is why the planes seemingly "disappear" as if a Road Runner Cartoon.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment