Part 1: 9/11 Debates
The following comments were made under:
9/11 Truth Movement: All Theories Welcome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
9/11 Truth Movement: Neutron Nuclear DEW
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
x95 Gordon Hoxtell : hard evidence repudiates mini-nuke
2014-01-30
Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
By Steven Jones
1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis.
4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust.
5. Nuclear activation or residual "fall-out" radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.
6. No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.
7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)
x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : hard evidence is greatly flawed
2014-01-30
Dear Mr. Gordon Hoxtell,
Thank you for re-posting Dr. Steven Jones summary from "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers." It is greatly flawed.
"1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis."
This "observation" came from a flawed report that was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. The report re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.
The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" should not have been used by Dr. Jones unchallenged and as the final authority of what tritium levels were present.
The "mini-nuke" phrase plays on the public's perception of nukes and frames it improperly.
"4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust."
The Lioy et al. report was also a flawed.
- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
The delay in taking samples is important, because were Dr. Jones to have discussed variations of neutron devices (which he blatantly omitted), it would have been revealed that their claim to fame is dissipation of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in 24-48 hours.
The Lioy report states:
"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."
Neither the actual measurement nor what technical definition of "background level" were provided in the report. One is left with wondering if any games of re-defining "background levels" was done as in the Tritium Report. (Be that as it may, these measurements from a late date were good news from the perspective of low-radiation devices.)
"5. Nuclear activation or residual 'fall-out' radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis."
Nice of "the author" (Dr. Jones) to test for radioactivity in his samples, but from the perspective of low radiation neutron devices, his testing was many days late and dollars short.
"6. No fatalities due to radiation 'burning' were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse."
True, but it is being skewed into the realm of larger mini-nukes. When neutron devices are considered, the vast majority of their energy is released (upwards) as highly energetic neutrons. As such, the other side-effects of the nuclear detonation from the blast wave, heat wave, and EMP are vastly reduced to tactical levels. Short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would be created in materials hit by the neutrons. Humans close enough to get radiation "burning" would have been decimated by the blast/heat waves or the structure falling down upon them.
These devices were DEW (directed energy weapons) in the sense that the neutrons were aimed, but not for the purpose of destruction but to get them out of the way. That tactical nature of the other side-effects therefore spared those who were farther away.
"7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers."
Again, this is framing it large towards mini-nukes. For all we know, the tactical heat did melt glass but then the blast way decimated it and dispersed it with other content from the building over a wide radial distance.
"8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)"
Once more, he frames it as mini-nuke when ERW or neutron nuclear DEW would be more accurate. When of a tactical nature and within WTC-7, one questions whether vertically-directed plumes of dust would leave the structure.
In fairness, I don't actively champion neutron DEW for WTC-7. Each building -- including WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 -- needs to considered individually. Assuming that one mechanism was responsible for all plays right into the disinformation game and is easily discredited.
Dr. Jones' paper has other flaws including a logic error best summarized as:
"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device."
In other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table, he takes all nuclear devices out of consideration.
The blatant omission is neutron bombs.
//
x97 Maxwell C. Bridges : generals & majors with itchy trigger fingers
2014-02-04
Earlier in this discussion Norma Rae wrote: "Do you guys think that free energy was harnessed from Hurricane Erin? I haven't done research in that area, but it sure does pique my interest."
I have researched it, I don't rule out the capability, but I don't believe this clever little diddy from Dr. Wood is applicable to 9/11 WTC-1, WTC-2, or WTC-7. Demolitions of the towers happened starting from "near the top" not from "the tippy-top." WTC-7 demolition happened internally and closely resembles a controlled demolition EXCEPT in the decibel levels.
The nuggets of truth to be rescued from Dr. Wood's excellent observations are:
(1) They were controlling the weather. The hurricane may have been a "clean-up" back-up plane if things really went foul and contrary to plan. If they weren't controlling the weather, then why did FEMA and a whole slew of 1st responders set up their stations on a damn pier? It was known all week long that the hurricane was coming and that NYC could have been in the path. They could have been wiped out on that pier, but seemed to know better. [The hurricane also enabled other things, like sucking the clouds away and giving clear skies for both the "amatuer pilots" as well as the broadcast media.]
(2) The media was complicit. All week long, the big weather story was the approaching hurricane. Yet on the day -- no, on the very morning before any of the 9/11 media hype -- when the hurricane was closest to NYC & the East coast, could have moved even closer, and still affected air/sea travel, suddenly hurricane Erin vanishes FROM THE WEATHER NEWS of the area.
Whereas I'd rule out "laser beams from space harnessing Hurricane Erin" for WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-3, and WTC-7, I am still open to persuassion that it could have been involved with the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its North Annex.
There is no reason to assume that all buildings were destroyed by the same mechanisms. Moreover, in a major show-case event like this with lots of targets, lots of redundancies, and generals & majors with itchy trigger fingers literally just dying to use some of the exotic weapons from their arsenals if only to prove their concepts and operational levels (that the public would be years in discovering), then nothing should be taken off the table too soon.
//
x98 Maxwell C. Bridges : listen to the evidence and don't get distracted (by her words)
2014-02-04
Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu,
It is well that you promote Dr. Judy 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, Dr. Wood 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.
//
x99 Maxwell C. Bridges : my own "loony" theory
2014-02-04
Dear Mr. Gordon Hoxtell,
I do not discount that "high-tech explosives" played a role. I just don't think it was the primary mechanism of destruction, and instead champion my own "loony" theory of neutron nuclear DEW (because the dust had Uranium, radiation tritium was measured, and measurements for other radiation didn't happen in a timely or thorough fashion, on purpose.)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
The dust cloud that your picture depicts, created by "high-tech explosives"? How can this pyroclastic cloud be attributed with the vehicle torchings along West Broadway, Vessey, and the car parks? It didn't torch more easily combustable flags, leaves, trees, people. The distance to some of the vehicles was a "cooling" one in terms of burning embers.
Although the destruction was loud, a straight-faced nugget of truth from (lying) Dr. Sunder of NIST is that the amounts of high-tech explosives required (for the overkill, pulverization) would have been deafening. Pain to ears and hearing loss were not some of the health issues reported by those within 1/4-1/2 a mile.
Part of my wild-ass theory is that wall assemblies were "separated" by conventional means milli-seconds after internal structure and content were "handled", thereby helping to contain (but not completely) undesired side-effects, such as EMP.
Speaking of wall assemblies and anomalous evidence, high-explosives in my opinion can't explain the "steel doobies."
An assembly for the exterior wall of the towers consisted of three vertical beams attached together by three horizontal spandral pieces. A "steel doobie" is one of these wall assemblies rolled up around the beams with bent spandrels acting like bands around a cigar.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s320/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5320.jpg
My premise? These were relatively close to the neutron DEW detonation. The intense heat softened the spandrels in an instance then the blast wave exhibited horizontal forces that wrapped them up around one of the beams before the assembly/doobie was ejected and fell to the ground.
//
x100 Atahan Ganduu : Ganduu Carousel #1: think anything, just don't go looking at the evidence
2014-02-04
Atahan Ganduu So a neutron bomb happened?
4 hours ago
Maxwell Bridges Multiple neutron devices per tower.
4 hours ago
Atahan Ganduu Oh multiple neutron devices?
4 hours ago
Maxwell Bridges It's my wild-ass, bat-shit crazy speculation, and I'm sticking to it (for now until properly applied science and analysis to the evidence can convince me otherwise.)
Been through lots of other theories including Dr. Wood (whose book I've read cover-to-cover and I regular data-mine from her website) and Dr. Jones' super-duper nano-thermite. They come up short. They have errors and omissions.
//
4 hours ago
Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges I'm not familiar with neutron devices. I'm open to hearing any theories. It might be better than mine. Is there a good link to learn about neutron devices that u recommend?
2 hours ago
Maxwell Bridges Ms. Norma Rae, "neutron bombs" or "enhanced radiation weapons" can be googled. No single link does it, but with enough data-mining and correlation between what is publicly stated, one can learn essentially what my bat-shit crazy premise brings to light.
If you haven't followed a link to myarticle on my blog and read it in context there, it would be a worthwhile endeavor. It sources other places.
Let's also remember that such a device would be classified. and those with intimate knowledge would be prevented from discussing it in public. Neutron devices, however, are a glaring omission by Dr. Steven Jones and company.
And the paid-shills on 9/11 Debates are having a devil of a time with it. I'm about ready to declare victory-by-default. Gotta love those "steel doobies" in getting the coincidence theorists OCT supporters to shut up.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png
//
2 hours ago
Maxwell Bridges A couple of more steel doobies.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s320/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5320.jpg
An assembly for the exterior wall of the towers consisted of three vertical beams attached together by three horizontal spandral pieces. A "steel doobie" is one of these wall assemblies rolled up around the beams with bent spandrels acting like bands around a cigar.
My premise? These were relatively close to the neutron DEW detonation. The intense heat softened the spandrels in an instance then the blast wave exhibited horizontal forces that wrapped them up around one of the beams before the assembly/doobie was ejected and fell to the ground.
//
2 hours ago
Atahan Ganduu What is a neutron bomb's effect on paper?
Atahan Ganduu's photo.
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/p173x172/264560_505430139575482_533722406_n.jpg
2 hours ago
Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu, a nugget of truth from Dr. Wood in asking about a neutron device's effect on paper.
The neutrons themselves don't have any effect on paper, but my premise is that they were DEW-style aimed into the sky.
The heat wave would torch some paper instantly, the blast wave would scatter some paper, but the point of the neutron devices is that these two side-effects would be reduced to tactical levels. They didn't decimate everything on all levels, but certainly did for the content at and around detonation levels.
A third side-effect of a neutron DEW is an EMP, which doesn't effect paper, flags, leaves, or people, but (after slipping out through window slits and gaps in falling debris) would affect the metal in cars line-of-sight by generating Eddy currents that could be great enough to cause paint to burn and plastic affixed to the metal (e.g., door seals, door handles).
When you consider Dr. Wood's collected evidence of vehicle damage like along West Broadway and the car park, you could think EMPs.
//
2 hours ago
Atahan Ganduu yeah, think anything, just don't go looking at the evidence.
about an hour ago
Atahan Ganduu The ground vibrated, the building didnt go bang on the ground.
Atahan Ganduu's photo.
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/s261x260/1623626_505452572906572_1458491423_n.jpg
about an hour ago
Atahan Ganduu The building turned to dust in midair.
Atahan Ganduu's photo.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/p75x225/1660669_505453082906521_1488762265_n.jpg
about an hour ago
Maxwell Bridges Mr. Atahan Ganduu, was your comment directed at me? "yeah, think anything, just don't go looking at the evidence."
Nothing you've posted since contradicts anything I've posted about what effect multiple neutron DEW devices would have.
I take Dr. Wood's DEW speculations and bring them down to earth into something that could be real-world operationally powered.
//
about an hour ago
Atahan Ganduu So in using your imagination..
about an hour ago
Maxwell Bridges Mr. Atahan Ganduu writes: "So in using your imagination..."
It seems to follow in the same negative key as his previous remark: "yeah, think anything, just don't go looking at the evidence."
My Wood-troll sensors are tingling.
If you haven't already googled me, I suggest you do so.
I acquired Dr. Wood's book, when her very name resulted in knee-jerk, unsubstantiated, echo-chamber "loony" claims by others. I read her book (and website) cover-to-cover, which nobody of note in the 9/11TM has done. I have championed Dr. Wood's work and still do, albeit in a back-handed fashion.
I've data-mined a lot of valuable nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood. I've acted on her Easter Egg orders "to study the evidence and don't get distracted."
I suggest that you do the same.
Dr. Wood's work is a disinformation vehicle. She doesn't get everything right. In fact, a mark of a Wood-troll is to believe that she did and to not acknowledge blatant errors that she should have fixed in going from the web to the book.
And if you think for a moment that you can defend Dr. Wood's theories against my deviant, hybrid ones, you'll be in for a rude awakening and an "ah-ha" moment. How can I be so sure? Oh, I can start and finish with the simple fact that Dr. Wood expounds no theories in her book; she dangles innuendo of concepts that may or may not be true on their own merits but may or may not apply to 9/11, but she never connects them ON PURPOSE into a cohesive whole.
Her work has been cleverly designed to fail in all things except one: to get the public to study the evidence which then requires all 9/11 theories-du-jour to address in order to be valid.
//
38 minutes ago
Atahan Ganduu When's your book coming out?
42 minutes ago
Maxwell Bridges Mr. Atahan Ganduu taunts: "When's your book coming out?"
Probably after my better half leaves this earthly realm or leaves me.
If I had my druthers, Dr. Wood would give me the source files for her book as a starting point for me to edit, to overlay my deviate nuclear theories, and to take it into a worth-while direction.
Meanwhile you'll have to be satisfied with my blog.
//
29 minutes ago
Atahan Ganduu Your blog is great but is no substitute for the investigation called "where did the towers go?"
22 minutes ago
Maxwell Bridges Thanks for the compliment, Mr. Atahan Ganduu, and no disagreement on my end of my blog ~not~ being a substitute for Dr. Wood's investigation called "Where Did the Towers Go?"
That's because my blog's latest article STANDS ON ITS SHOULDERS and takes things where she and her work could not: into rationally considering nukes.
Case in point, the dirt. Why does Dr. Wood's web page on the dirt STOP so abruptly? There she was, documenting how clean dirt was trucked in, spread out, then a few days later scooped together and trucked out.
Another case: nuclear mechanisms. Dr. Wood is an intelligent person and an astute researcher. Why didn't she ever consider variants of neutron devices? In the nuclear realm, you've only got fission, fusion, and neutron (which is a variation of fusion and may be fission triggered). Surely she would have stumbled upon it.
Another case: beams from space. Why did Dr. Wood allow others to frame her work as such, when clearly she knows this was inapplicable to the observed tower destruction?
Dr. Wood doesn't even speculate into how her DEW devices would be situated in the towers, MUCH LESS how they'd be powered in a real-world operational sense. (Energy from Hurricane Erin or Tesla doesn't cut it.)
My unfounded speculation into the matter is that one of Dr. Wood's colleagues (who may have been responsible for her website) was killed under mysterious circumstances. Message received.
//
x101 Maxwell C. Bridges : WDTTG doesn't connect together its innuendo
2014-02-05
Through your rose colored glass, Mr. Ganduu, maybe.
Take them off and you'll see in WDTTG unsubstantiated Hutchison Effects, you'll learn about Hurricane Erin, you'll learn about unsubstantiated innuendo regarding harvesting energy from hurricanes and Tesla energy. You'll learn that -- unlike her website -- WDTTG doesn't promote any theories, doesn't connect together its innuendo.
Mr. Ganduu wrote: "Anybody who says otherwise is just not informed." That is, "anybody who says WDTTG ~does~ contain speculation and does ~not~ strictly evidence is just not informed."
I've read Dr. Wood's book cover-to-cover, and then have returned to various sections many times since in order to more closely inspect the information. I have also been all over Dr. Wood's website many times.
I will wager that you have ~not~ read Dr. Wood's book cover-to-cover and that you are not as familiar with it as I am. (Too many brain-dead Wood supporters have their eyes glaze over at the science and start skimming and skipping. They end up promoting it without having read every single chapter, every single paragraph, every single word. Hell, I admit that even I was recommending Dr. Wood's book publicly before I was even half way done. Why? Up to that point, I had seen no gross errors; I had hopes that she would tie things together in the second half; I reasoned that even if the second half turned into sweet-as-honey disinformation, the evidence and pictorial correlations from the first half made the investment worthwhile.)
WDTTG ~does~ have speculation, most of which is found in leading questions under pictures. As it turns out, some of that speculation is flat-out wrong and should have been known to her between penning the articles for her website and re-purposing that information for her book, if she would have been paying attention to the critics as well as furthering her research. Moreover, the omissions from her book on themes nuclear and her otherwise bum's rush on the matter can certainly be couched as speculation, if not outright disinformation.
The strength of WDTTG is indeed the evidence.
As for my blog's speculation? Or more correctly, my latest article about neutron devices? Mr. Dan Plesse sent me an excellent "old" thesis on the subject that hits the exact same nail on the head. Wish I would have had this much earlier, but I pat myself on the back for the parallelisms of my independent efforts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
//
x102 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ganduu Carousel #2: game-playing cinches the deal
2014-02-05
Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu,
First of all, I TAKE OFFENSE AT YOUR MALFRAMED STATEMENT: "discuss how a nuke bomb destroyed the towers but not these people."
I have not been promoting "a single nuke bomb," and you know this. You even had it clarified that multiple devices were deployed per towers. If I was unsure of your game-playing before, this cinches the deal.
I taken offense at calling them "nuke bombs", due to the fact that the spectrum of nuclear devices is rather wide. Your deliberate mal-framing is intended to play on decades of nuke hype in the media that plants perceptions in the masses with regards to what a nuke can do in terms of large destructive yield and radioactive fall-out.
A more instructive phrasing that avoids all ambiguity is "neutron nuclear DEW".
These are tactical devices. The configuration as neutron device reduces the heat and blast waves to a maximum radius that was probably less than half the width of the towers. However, this isn't all. The highly energetic neutrons were expelled in the most useful direction for the operation -- upwards -- thereby avoiding collateral damage to life forms and other devices lower in the towers. One could easily say that such turned them into "shaped nuclear charges" directing even vast portions of the tactical heat and blast waves upwards, as is evidenced by the spire.
Lest there be any doubt, a "shaped nuclear charge" fits well within the definition of DEW: directed energy weapon.
The surviving firemen in the stairwell were not above most of the detontations of the devices. They weren't zapped by neutrons, and weren't close enough to the tactical heat and blast waves to be incinerated. (However, others were, which is why tiny fragments of humans were discovered in the dust atop other nearby buildings.) Owing to the numerous hot-spots that burned for many weeks, one could speculate that such were fizzling nukes, whose fracticide or failure spared the firemen their lives.
I posted this just a few minutes ago elsewhere, but it is worth posting again. Compliments of Mr. Dan Plesse.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
//
x103 Maxwell C. Bridges : KE=(1/2)mv^2
2014-02-05
The video, which is at best "misinformation", after showing side-by-side images of a truck impacting a barrier and a 9/11 plane entering a tower, asks the question: "Do you believe that an aluminum plane can slice through the steel of the towers like a knife through butter?"
My answer is now "yes" and is based on physics. KE=(1/2)mv^2. The energy of the collision is proportional to velocity-squared. Energy in a collision is equal and opposite. Thus, the larger the velocity, vastly more energy is available to interact with the "bullet/plane" and the "target/towers."
The truck hitting the barrier and stopping is at a much lower speed (velocity-squared), with insufficient energy to act on the static intrisic energy of the truck's materials beyond bending.
Do we believe that a lead bullet (which is very maluable even by hand) can penetrate a steel plate (which is not so maluable)?
I was surprised at my findings from observing high-speed film of a bullet hitting a steel plate. Without the film, you'd say that the bullet did indeed pierce the plate. Upon closer inspection at slower speeds, what is observed is the bullet splattering itself into fragments on the gun-side of the plate, but not before transferring energy in the outline of the bullet into the steel. So much energy (velocity-squared) is at play that it breaks bonds in the steel resulting in a bullet-shaped plug of steel getting pushed out the other side. The bullet didn't really go through the hole, although it made a bullet-size hole.
The tower wall assemblies had 50 cm wide steel beams on 100 cm centers from one another. Thus, the wall was not solid everywhere. When the fast moving plane (velocity-squared) hit the towers, part of the plane was shredded and scuttled into the empty spaces between beams. And part of the plane impacted the steel of the towers. Equal-and-opposite, such impacts splattered the weaker aluminum sections into nothingness while also transferring energy into the beams to slice them.
This being said, both Shanksville and the Pentagon should have had more evidence of the plane. Even planes that mistakenly cratered into the sides of mountains (e.g., at high velocities) left more recognizable debris than Shanksville.
//
x104 Maxwell C. Bridges : theorectically a clean nuclear weapon, and theoretically a surgical nuclear weapons
2014-02-05
Neutron nuclear DEW remains very much a viable theory to explain what happened at the WTC on 9/11.
Here is a new-found document from 1980 by Michael A. Aquino, PhD on "The Neutron Bomb." My work was arrived at independently, but has striking parallels to how things were in 1980.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
+++ begin quote
What is the neutron bomb? Descrbed most simply, it is a thermonuclear device which kills by "enhanced radiation" (ER), i.e. a relatively more deadly emission of radiation during the initial detonation of the warhead.
The advantages of such a warhead are twofold: It is theorectically a clean nuclear weapon, and it is theoretically a surgical nuclear weapons.
As a clean nuclear device which does not contaminate the areas around the target with residual radiation or fallout, the neutron bomb could be used to kill or incapacitate a large attack formation of enemy soldiers, whether on foot or in armored vehicles. Minutes after the detonation, friendly forces could enter the target area without risk to themselves - something quite impossible in a situation in which old-style "dirty" tactical nuclear warheads were used.
The second advantage of the neutron warheads is also related to the limitations of their effects. Since the bomb kills with a single burst of radiation, and since the size of that burst of radiation can be controlled, field commanders could use the wapon under conditions containing restrictions on "collateral damage", i.e. the incidental effects of a nuclear explosion on nearby population centers and/or structures. This controlled-burst aspect of the neutron bomb is hereafter referred to as its surgical characteristic.
The term "thermonuclear" refers to bombs incorporating the fusion principle, as opposed to the fission principle of Hiroshima-style atomic bombs.
... [F]usion bombs employ ... the heavier isotopes of hydrogen ..., known respectively as deuterium and tritium. Since tritium in particular is expensive and highly radioactive, it is generally stored in warheads as lithium-6 - a less-expensive and non-radioactive substance that is converted to tritium when the fusion process begins.
...
An ideal tactical nuclear weapon, therefore, would minimize the blast and residual radiation effects and enhance initial radiation effects. Thus its application would be primarily antiforce and not anticity. As it was originally conceived, the neutron bomb was intended to meet this requirement by incorporating the following characteristics:
- Its neutron emission would be enhanced to a level sufficient to penetrate all armor or built-up structures in a predetermined area, sparing only persons in cellars or A-bomb-type shelters.
- Its blast and heat effects would be substantially less than those of normal atomic weapon of equivalent power.
- Residual radiation would be elimininated or at least greatly reduced.
- The size of its neutron emission could be controlled precisely enough to enable it to be used surgically against targets of varying size such as troop formations, enemy supply centers, etc.
- The neutron emission would have the practical capacity to neutralize (i.e. destory all life in) an area larger than that of a non-nuclear weapon of equal weight.
- The non-thermonuclear effects of a neutron warhead could possible enable it to be regarded as a weapon whose use would not be subject to the Presidential-level controls of existing tactical nuclear weapons.
- The neutron bomb's development and production costs would be competitive with those of comparable tactical nuclear and conventional warheads.
+++ end quote
The above is talking about a "neutron warhead" to be used in the theatre of war, which has different application goals than that of 9/11. Between tweaking the neutron emission and aiming it away (DEW), a different type of surgical nuclear weapon could be achieved.
Since the publication of the above document, Star Wars happened, which became SDI and other names. Much money was invested into research, most of it classified.
//
x105 Maxwell C. Bridges : when velocity is great
2014-02-06
Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "Maxwell I have read Wood from cover to cover and bought a copy."
Not only did I purchase a copy for myself to read and reference, but I've purchased at least four other copies of her book and had it sent -- with their permission -- to leaders in the 9/11TM (or important debate opponents) so that I could get them on the same page in debunking it. [Several others have declined my gift.] From all, I am still awaiting a chapter-by-chapter "good, bad, and ugly" review, but I'm not holding my breath. And meanwhile, I've been able to suss things out for myself.
Her book can't be debunked per se, because it isn't structured in a way that makes it possible (like with definitive theories all connected together in a cohesive way). No, she dangles a log of innuendo and opens our minds to valid concepts, even if not necessarily applicable to 9/11. Worse, any rational attempts to point out the "bad and ugly" (which do exist but not in overwhelming measure) has the very sticky problem of the "good" that remains and needs to be addressed in any theory-du-jour.
Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "You still have not explained the lack of decceleration in the plane impact,..."
Wrong, I have, and you fail to grasp it. Dr. Jenkins -- yes, Dr. Wood's nemesis both with faulty arguments and valid points -- made an analysis of the Sandia F4 fighter-into-wall test that with hindsight wasn't far off. For me, I had to also see the Mythbuster rocket-sled-through-car to really grasp the concept.
VELOCITY-SQUARED !!!
That is the key, Mr. Joy: K.E.=(1/2)m*(v^2). When velocity is great, that velocity-squared term in the energy equation makes it massive to the point where it totally overwhelms the static, inherit, structural energy of materials in the vehicle.
The F4 plane did have slight deceleration, but only high speed cameras could detect it. None of the cameras on 9/11 had the ability to capture the tiny deceleration of its impacting energy overwhelming the structural energy of the relatively light materials in the aircraft design for flight, not for withstanding crashes (like a car).
Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "and as for Rich Hall: Rich argues that you cannot have two sets of data on one 'aeroplane' hitting the WTC. So he gets two possible sets and concludes the military was the correct one."
Yeah, and he gets it wrong (on purpose). The two sets of data -- although seemingly offset by 1800' -- are really not. They are consistent with one another AND WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE TOLERANCES OF ACCURACY such that they do represent the same flight path. Rich Hall was playing with the know tolerances of the two different radar systems, and is juking it to dupe conspiracy theorists.
Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "You can disagree, but then you'd have to suggest a good reason for faking a military radar set which ought not to be there at all."
I can both disagree AND ~not~ suggest a good reason for faking a military radar set, because it wasn't faked. One set was more accurate than the other, but both sets overlapped and were in agreement with the 3D analysis of the videos of many different perspectives (e.g., the seeming dive-bomber, the level flight, the upswoop, etc.)
Radar doesn't specify an exact location, but rather a range within which the object most likely is.
Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "It is more logical to fake a plane path everyone saw, than to invent a path no-one saw."
Rich Hall uses, say, the extreme right-hand value on the (wide) tolerances of a particular radar system and compares with, say, the extreme left-hand value on the tolerances of another radar system to come to the dubious conclusion of two flight paths, therefore one must be faked. Rich Hall isn't an idiot, but he hopes that those who believe his disinfo words are.
Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "By the way, Maxwell Bridges it sounds like you are somebody special in the 911 world, that you 'mine and refine' the work of one of the most detailed analysts of WTC I have read, and you make out that this person or that person is disinfo."
The leaders of the 9/11TM -- particularly those with PhD's -- have been guilty of passing very negative book reviews of Dr. Wood's work WITHOUT having read the book. The negative PR against Dr. Wood to frame her has "loony, nutty, crazy" has been pretty consistent and certainly dissuades people from plunking down their own $44 to review it.
So I put my money where my mouth was and PAID to get this book into the hands of the likes of David Chandler, renouned high school physics teacher, because I wanted the Dr. Wood's book debunked (if possible) legitimately: chapter-by-chapter, page-by-page, image-by-image. And what couldn't be debunked, I wanted rescued and re-purposed.
I'm Señor El Once in the following.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5905
Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "I am very careful before I suggest such a thing and I have evidence to back it. Since you have your own blog and website you are obviously far cleverer than I. You must therefore be in a position to take out a lawsuit against the US government or NIST? What actions do you have to date?
Dr. Wood's qui tam case lawsuit was designed to fail from the onset -- and her lawyers should have known this --, because she didn't have standing. She wasn't a government employee blowing a whistle on shoddy work that she had nothing to do with, didn't have personal damages from the faulty reports, etc. It was destined to be thrown out, and the Bush relative made sure of it. But what is worse from that little legal game, was that double-jeopardy gets invoked the next time someone with standing tries to make the case.
My aspirations aren't to go to court. Nope. I'm just feeding the sheep.
Where's your qui tam lawsuit, Mr. Joy? "The serious people have stepped up to the plate to challenge the authorities. The others are just bla bla bla in my opinion."
//
x106 Maxwell C. Bridges : elements of disinfo
2014-02-09
Dear Mr. Joy,
I had mentioned regarding Dr. Wood: "elements of disinfo on purpose, crafty, not fixing or addressing valid criticisms, blatant mistakes."
You asked me to supply evidence. I'm short of time to do your request justice, but I can at least get you started.
Keep in mind that my blog demonstrates how my beliefs and views have changed over time through my discussions with others. I apologize in advance for the tedium of it, and that you're getting my side of the debates and only quoted passages from my opponents that I deemed relevant. [Rabbit-Hole Warning:] If you want the full, original context, generally the date stamps are linked to the source forum to the exact comment.
The following links aren't the entirety of it. Below the links I've copied in a couple of recent comments of mine to Facebook on the matter.
- http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/06/dr-wood-has-not-made-sufficient-case.html
- http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/06/dr-judy-wood-position-statement-and.html
- http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/06/dont-wave-off-nuclear-signatures.html
++++++ From Comments to the forums
Earlier in this discussion Norma Rae wrote: "Do you guys think that free energy was harnessed from Hurricane Erin? I haven't done research in that area, but it sure does pique my interest."
I have researched it, I don't rule out the capability, but I don't believe this clever little diddy from Dr. Wood is applicable to 9/11 WTC-1, WTC-2, or WTC-7. Demolitions of the towers happened starting from "near the top" not from "the tippy-top." WTC-7 demolition happened internally and closely resembles a controlled demolition EXCEPT in the decibel levels.
The nuggets of truth to be rescued from Dr. Wood's excellent observations are:
(1) They were controlling the weather. The hurricane may have been a "clean-up" back-up plane if things really went foul and contrary to plan. If they weren't controlling the weather, then why did FEMA and a whole slew of 1st responders set up their stations on a damn pier? It was known all week long that the hurricane was coming and that NYC could have been in the path. They could have been wiped out on that pier, but seemed to know better. [The hurricane also enabled other things, like sucking the clouds away and giving clear skies for both the "amatuer pilots" as well as the broadcast media.]
(2) The media was complicit. All week long, the big weather story was the approaching hurricane. Yet on the day -- no, on the very morning before any of the 9/11 media hype -- when the hurricane was closest to NYC & the East coast, could have moved even closer, and still affected air/sea travel, suddenly hurricane Erin vanishes FROM THE WEATHER NEWS of the area.
Whereas I'd rule out "laser beams from space harnessing Hurricane Erin" for WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-3, and WTC-7, I am still open to persuassion that it could have been involved with the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its North Annex.
There is no reason to assume that all buildings were destroyed by the same mechanisms. Moreover, in a major show-case event like this with lots of targets, lots of redundancies, and generals & majors with itchy trigger fingers literally just dying to use some of the exotic weapons from their arsenals if only to prove their concepts and operational levels (that the public would be years in discovering), then nothing should be taken off the table too soon.
//
x107 Maxwell C. Bridges : limited hang-outs to get nukes taken off of the table
I apologize for my tardiness in chiming in. I was kicking some asses on a shilly FB group that ultimately led to my banishment. FB is a time-suck in its own rights, let alone before engaging in 9/11 discussions.
Mr. Ganduu says that the WTC destruction evidence doesn't agree with nukes. Yes and no. On the yes side (to nukes not agreeing with evidence), when nukes are framed improperly as Dimitri Khelezov does. Big massive things. His proposal only accounts for them in the basement, when clearly the pulverization was top-down.
Offhand I can recall only two nuggets of truth that I'd be half inclined to rescue from that disinfo agent's body of work.
(1) Because NYC is constantly renewing itself, they got wise and started requiring demolition plans to go along with building plans, particularly when the structures were going to be much larger in scale. Mr. Khelezov says that a document was stolen by Russian agents or leaked to the same that was essentially the demolition plan for the towers submitted with the building plans, and it included or left the door open for nuclear devices.
(2) There are some massive, "glassy" crators below places like the WTC-4. Mr. Khelezov says that only a nuke has something to turn sand to glass, etc. On the flip side, the government apologists say that the formation was there for centuries and was just deep enough that no one knew it was there at the time of construction.
Be that as it may, "no, the evidence does indeed support nuclear methods."
- The energy of the pulverization.
- The low decibel levels in the destruction (e.g., couldn't be conventional explosives/incendiaries).
- The duration and heat of under-rubble fires.
- The evidence of high heat in the demolition process (as exhibited by wall assemblies rolled into "steel doobies" and tiny iron sphere permeating the dust. The latter was an anomalous feature documented in the RJ Lee group's report on the Banker's Trust building.)
- The tritium measurements. (The reports succeed in the limited scopes they were given, but their results cannot be used to explain the whole tritium story. Measurements were delayed and at far flung drainage points. No samples at the hot-spots. Measurements were stopped when what they were measuring was well below EPA thresholds on what is considered a health risk. As part of this, trace levels were re-defined 55 times greater than before.)
- The radiation reports. MISSING IN ACTION. Show me the report that measured systematically, thoroughly, and promptly (24-48 hours) for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation and decisively shows them all at or around trace background levels. Doesn't exist. What does exist are reports that used a few suspect samples EAST of the WTC that were taken many days to weeks after 9/11. Given that "trace/background level" was redefined in the tritium report, when this report on radioactive nucleotides (sp) was talking about trace levels, it gave neither what was measured nor what trace levels were.
- The USGS dust samples show traces of Uranium and other elements consistent with nuclear mechanisms. The kicker are correlations between elements going from sample to sample indicating being part of the destructive process.
- The radiation reduction hazmat procedures at the WTC. Tight security. No errant cameras or Geiger counters allows. Hell, they even tried to outlaw Geiger counters in NYC.
Mr. Joy wrote: "Now its not mini nukes in the building, its demolition nukes laid when the buildings were built, NO, change that, bored into the bedrock, NO strike that, neutron bombs, I mean, correction lots of neutron bombs."
FTR, the involvement of devices that would be varients of neutron bombs didn't come into play until about a year ago in parallel efforts (my work and that of a crew Dr. Fetzer brought together for a conference and VT articles).
It doesn't surprise me that nuke theories ran the spectrum -- on purpose -- as limited hang-outs to get nukes taken off of the table. Every single one of them (until about a year ago) including the works of the Anonymous Physicists, BYU Nuclear Physicists Dr. Steven Jones, and Dr. Judy Wood OMITTED ANY REFERENCE TO ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO A NEUTRON BOMB. That is pretty glaring.
Mr. Joy wrote: "... SO powerful they can make WTC1 and 2 and 7 into dust yet at the same time produce no significant seismic signature, no EMP no heat no mushroom cloud, and - so clever- just restrict their effects to the WTC postcode."
The seismic signatures are there, but the configuration of the neutron devices aimed it towards tactical blast and heat waves.
I never said there was no EMP. Nope, Dr. Wood actually documents it very well in her collection of images of damaged vehicles. The things to note about EMP is that this side-effect can be tweaked somewhat in the design (that also reduced blast/heat side-effects) and more importantly in its placement. EMP is always reduced when detonated from within.
No mushroom cloud? I disagree. The mushroom cloud was distorted first by the smoke and fires already billowing out of the towers prior to detonations. Secondly, devices were detonated with structure above that would have dampened and distorted such cloud formation.
Certainly, my "neutron nuclear DEW" devices have issues. For example (because it is probably classified), I don't really have proof that the highly energetic neutrons could be expelled in a targeted fashion DEW-like to get them out of the way, as I describe. But I do know from the inventor of the neutron device itself that some direction of neutrons is possible; and we know from the proposals that made it into the public sphere from Star Wars that directing energy from nuclear weapons (e.g., Excalibur) was not idle speculation (although probably not completely accurate, either, and more along the lines of wording to scare the Ruskies in the Cold War days.)
Omissions can be major clues to a cover-up agenda. Nothing produced by the government clearly proves that there was no evidence of nuclear devices. What did come out, was very focused and scope-limited. The 9/11 TM wasn't bound to those scope-limits, yet the PhD's all swallowed those reports and spun them further... Yet still no mention of neutron-style devices. Not by Dr. Jones, not by Dr. Judy, and not even by the Anonymous Physicist.
//
x108 Maxwell C. Bridges : egg and tennis racket
2014-02-10
Dear Mr. Joy,
Your egg and tennis racket example is a poor one, but for the sake of discussion, let's continue using it but with the simplifications (a) that the racket is not moving and is held in place, and (b) that the some mechanical egg-thrower can reliably toss eggs at whatever velocity is dialed in.
At very low velocities V0, the egg bounces off of the nylons of the tennis racket.
At certain low velocities V1>V0, the material strength of the egg shell is less than the kinetic energy [K.E.(V1) =(1/2)m(V1^2)], so the egg shell cracks on impact, but egg shell and most of egg still on projection side.
At certain low velocities V2>V1, not only does the egg shell crack on impact, but also some of the egg yoke & white go through the mesh. Some of the egg shell bounces back towards the projection side and some sticks in mesh. Why? Think of the egg shell as having a leading edge and a trailing edge, while the liquid egg yoke & white is the bulk of the mass. Once the mesh of the racket has broken the leading edge of the egg shell, the liquid mass of the egg is free to continue with its momentum in the same direction it was heading through its broken egg shell and around the narrow mesh. However, the trailing edge of the egg shell suddenly loses the bulk of the mass component in its energy equation. When the trailing edge approaches the mesh, only the remainder of the egg shell's mass figures into the kinetic energy equation. It might not be enough energy to break all pieces of the trailing egg shell into pieces that can fit through the mesh.
At certain velocities V3>V2, none of the egg shell has the inherit structural energy to withstand the kinetic energy. Aside from the liquidy yoke, more and more of the egg shell gets sliced through the mesh, and only much smaller pieces of the egg shell remain on the projection side.
Crank up the velocity V4>V3 to that of a major league baseball player (V4=90mph) and differences become apparent, because the forces on the racket are no longer negligible, and one hand holding of the racket might break your wrist. The racket needs to be placed in a jig to hold it.
K.E.(V4) = (1/2)m(V4^2) = 4,050 * (mass of egg).
Now crank up the velocity V5>>V4 to 500 mph of the egg coming at the racket.
K.E.(V5) = (1/2)m(V5^2) = 125,000 * (mass of egg).
In other words, the K.E.(V5) is over 30 times greater than K.E.(V4) of the baseball pitcher who broke your wrist.
If I were to hazzard an educated guess, I'd say that the egg gets decimated while also tearing the head right off the racket handle. When the head is located, the mesh will have many broken strands where clearly the egg impacted and was decimated.
Obviously, we can find many differences that make the egg-racket analogy not applicable to airplane-tower. The ratio of the strengths of an egg-shell to a nylon string is not comparible to the ratio of the strengths of airplane aluminum/sheet-metal to building steel.
Mr. Joy correctly references Newton's third laws about "equal and opposite forces," but he appears to be applying it in a lop-sided fashion while also neglecting spacing between beams in the steel wall assemblies. Sure the light-weight components of, say, the wings at large velocities hitting the wall won't leave much of the wings. But energy will be transferred into the wall assemblies that can bend them, that can break bolts/nuts at junctures between wall assemblies, and that could break/slice them. If the wall assembly were solid, maybe we would have seen more pieces bounce. But the 50cm beams on 100cm centers of the walls gave a path of least resistance for non-impacting portions of the aircraft to travel. Because these were connected to impacting portions of the aircraft, both were carried by momentum into empty floor-space.
I encourage people to study the F4 Sandia tests, the Mythbusters "Rocket-sled-through-car", and any number of slow-motion videos of projectiles hitting objects. Large velocities make large differences in the energy delivered. Features to note are what happens to the projectile, what energy gets transferred, and what happens to the target.
The above is 1/2 of the puzzle that had me change my beliefs about planes (not) impacting the towers. Today, I don't question the reciprocating damage that decimated aircraft and seemingly sliced into the towers. The other 1/2 was two sets of radar data and 3D modeling done on most of the video footage of 2nd plane that all depicted the same flight path.
In conclusion: I don't have issues with an aircraft creating such damage while seemingly disappearing into the towers. I have issues with being able to fly the alleged make-and-model at such speeds at low altitude and with such precision.
//
x109 Maxwell C. Bridges : the "means to the end" matter.
2014-02-11
Mr. Gamaliel Perez wrote: "It was pure and simple controlled demolition. why bother making it so complex? Next thing you will be saying is that aliens did it! This really makes conspiracy theories look ugly."
I assume by the "this" in the last sentence refers to any contemplation that the true sources of destruction at the WTC might have been nuclear in nature.
Well, I disagree with Mr. Perez. Based on this philosophy, it doesn't matter how someone expired from knife wounds in your kitchen. Equal weighting is given to (A) "she was being attacked, reached out in desperation, her hands found her Cutco serated knife, so she defended herself by stabbing her assailant once in the chest" and to (B) "he purchased a raw metal block online, forged it into a blade, spent countless hours honing the blade's cutting edge, and then stabbed the victim like an Indy 500 sewing machine."
The "means to the end" matter.
My premise that WTC involved nuclear devices adds an extra degree of malice to the motive. It clarifies why the official story has few corrections or deviations, despite glaring flaws that defy physics and the observable evidence.
I mean, had it been a "pure and simple controlled demolition", once the Muslim patsies had run their course, any number of extremist patsies could be rail-roaded and tortured into confessing their involvement. Nobody would ever question their ability to get conventional demolition materials.
But when the means are nuclear, the list of suspects gets reduced to a small set of governments and their agencies who routinely work together, thereby always pointing back to insiders in high places in the US Government.
As a complete momentary detour, the US Government used Deplete Uranium munition in both Gulf Wars. They condoned rendition, torture, indefinite detention without trial, and a host of other despicable measures. Today, we know they hyped the threat of Saddam's WMD's, but even when thinking back on the day of our invasion, the US Government's willingness to throw its military resources into the face of those alleged WMD's is another data point in the trend line about what callous actions the US Government is truly capable of. Nuclear 9/11 mechanisms fits the same trend line.
Back to the subject, even with nuclear means, though, the US Government could have weaseled out some plausible deniability and scapegoated some other nation, but probably not one with natural gas or oil. The issue would be the figurative nuclear fall-out, whereby the public would have itchy trigger-fingers to nuke those scape goats. If the scape goated truly did have natural gas, oil, or hereon, we'd be nuking precisely that which the US Government hoped to gain.
The worse nuclear fall-out issue is that saner heads would probably prevail and the figurative nuking would be to the US Government, its leaders, its agencies, its banks, even the very concept of United States of America. The status quo could be voted out of existence, and those responsible held accountable. No gains for going along to get along.
It matters what they did, because it exposes the depth of the rot and what has to be done to excise it from our midst.
For these reasons, no matter how lame and stupid the official story is, they are committed to sticking with covering it up.
//
x110 Maxwell C. Bridges : any combination of what I speculate is more sensible and feasible than holograms and cloaked aircraft
2014-02-11
Dear Mr. Joy,
I apologize for the confusion and the unclarity.
You wrote: "You believe a 767 with enhanced capabilities hit WTC2, plus explosions inside. Why didn't you say that before. You've been on this carousel so many times. Before you were talking about an ordinary plane and 'velocity squared' and how the fins did the damage because of the speed. You seem to be playing catch up."
Let me be clearer still.
"Velocity-squared" and an ordinary plane traveling at high velocity should not be under-estimated in terms of energy available. The crash physics that we are used to involving closing speeds of 120 mph or much less are not readily aparent at velocities 4 or more times that.
I'd like to think that I know from the evidence that real objects flew, but were not the alleged commercial aircraft due to physics of the speed at low altitude.
Beyond that, I ~~SPECULATE~~ into the true nature of the aircraft in terms of engine thrust, wing/fuselage strength, and explosive payloads. Because I know it is speculation and that some other theory into the nature of the aircraft could dupe me, I'm not claiming it all as valid... EXCEPT that any combination of what I speculate is more sensible and feasible than holograms and cloaked aircraft.
//
x111 Maxwell C. Bridges : the mis-use of physics
2014-02-12
When I was a promoter of the no-plane-theory (NPT) [which I am no longer], I was duped by a mis-use of physics and crafty videos from September Clues (SC). The premise was that no planes hit the towers; instead, there was only one live shot of the 2nd plane (17 seconds delayed) which was sufficient time for computers to insert pixels of a plane. All other footage of the explosion trickled out and inserted other pixel renditions of the plane.
The mis-use of physics had several components. (1) The different videos from different perspectives of the 2nd plane seemed to show it dive bombing in, flying dead level, swooping up, etc., which SC claimed was fakery. [Later, 3D modeling of NYC with these videos and radar data later convinced me the flight paths were one and the same, but perspectives can easily get confused.]
(2) We're used to crash physics with closing velocities <100mph, where we see resistance, deformation, deceleration, etc. The SC premise was that we didn't see any of this with the WTC planes, therefore they weren't real. They were pixels on the telly. [Later, study of the F4 Sandia test and Mythbusters rocket-wedge-through-car brought to light that the energy of collisions is dependent upon a velocity-squared term. When the velocity is very large (>500mph), the energy of the impact far exceeds the static structural energy of the materials in the vehicle, thereby giving the impression gliding effortlessly into the towers without visible deceleration, wings or tail breaking off, etc.]
(3) SC argued that the light aluminum wings of an aircraft can't slice through steel. This first of all misrepresented the damage that didn't slice the tower wall assemblies wing-tip to wing-tip. Many are damaged and pushed and bent, some at the bolt junctions with other wall assemblies. Also, the wall assembly at 50cm wide columns on 100cm centers, meaning 50% of the wall was windows. Secondly, the aforementioned velocity-squared term and Newton's 3rd law about equal-and-opposite suggests to me that sufficient energy was present for the weaker materials of the plane to damage the wall assemblies as observed.
(4) SC argued that the speed of the depicted aircraft exceeded at near sea-level in heavy, resistive air its maximum rating at high altitude for when structure failure occurs, therefore it was pixels on the telly and not real planes. I now say it wasn't commercial planes but enhanced planes or essentially plane-looking-missiles.
SC also used much crafty cherry-picking, editing, and ruse in its analysis of broadcast footage (not from high resolution source, but from VCR recorded versions of broadcast footage). These technologies weren't without their glitches, and SC hyped "oh, a wing is missing in these few frames, therefore it is pixel fakery" as opposed to glitches in video transmission and digital rendering.
All disinformation, in order to have any traction, has to be built on a solid foundation of truth. SC does have nuggets of truth like (1) media was complicit from the onset and (2) some imagery manipulation did happen [just not to the extent that SC hypes.] Disinfo is meant to be discredited at some point, which can help bury nuggets of truth contained therein. The SC NPT was designed to fail, and in the disinfo war in a guilt-by-association fashion, what was meant to happen is that NPT would be taken off of the table for the Pentagon and Shanksville that sorely lack appropriate debris of a plane crash.
September Clues is worth watching particularly to see how disinfo is created. Lots of effort went into its parts 1-9, A-H. It does have nuggets of truth. But it is crafty disinfo that is hard to see through. The real kicker for me were exchanges that I had with Simon Shack and the SC crew on their forum. They hype that all imagery is faked, and have no good explanation for what really did happen behind the faking.
I am no longer NPT at the WTC. I am NCPT, which is "no commercial plane theory." I believe an flying vehicle was involved, but couldn't have been a commercial plane due to the speed, accuracy, and to a certain extent damage on towers.
Hope this brief summary helps.
//
x112 Maxwell C. Bridges : NIST broke this up into 3 stages
2014-02-12
Getting back around to the subject, Mr. Joe Gunzliano wrote on February 10 at 12:00pm: "Actually it's closer to 30% slower then freefall... Wtc 7 fell at a rate 60% slower then freefall. Both of these are the best approximations available since there is no complete view of any collapse."
Wrong, Mr. Gunzliano. The figures you cite (loosely) refer to the collapse rate of the first 18 stories combined together.
What is worse is that NIST broke this up into 3 stages. When one studies those three stages independently, stage 2 represented 8 stories (100+ ft) that NIST said was "undistinguishable from gravitational acceleration."
Even with the reported fires in WTC-7 and supposed damage from the WTC towers, no overly designed steel building would ever experience such a large stage of FREE FALL (which Mr. Gunzliano does not know is the same thing as "gravitational acceleration") ... unless it had help. The very concept, according NIST's Dr. Sunder, means that all of the structure and support underneath that area WAS NOT THERE to resist the collapse. Not possible, unless energy is added.
Yep, and good old Mr. Gunzliano is pulling out the old canard that AVERAGES these three collapse stages together so that NIST could say with a straight face and no lying ticks the God's honest (but meaningless) truth that the three stages "fell at a rate 60% slower then freefall."
This is how the government shills are exposed. They know not the errors within that which they mindlessly repeat from the government talking points.
//
x113 Maxwell C. Bridges : made under duress but under vastly different circumstances
2014-02-13
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Harr,
I must say that you are making a convincing case that a commercial plane *might* be able to maintain at lower-altitudes equivalent high-altitude cruising velocities if *descending* and if the auto-pilot was really good. It does not bode well for the NPT crowd that they aren't fathoming how crash physics change when velocity-squared exponentially puts the energy into the realm *beyond* "deceleration deformation and bouncing" and into instantaneous material shattering.
I have been further surprised by the tenacity of the hologram crowd who rely on a grossly wrong interpretation of radar data and the (in)significance of the deviations that measurement tolerances easily explain. This is aside from them having zero real-world instances of holograms whose inherent limitations would make it impossible to scale up without those same limitations being obvious.
This being said, a different data point remains that keeps me with the NCPT beliefs: namely, the telephone calls. None of the cellphone calls could have been made from any of the aircraft flying at altitude. I don't recall the specifics, but at least two of the flights did not have working airphones. Some of this leaked out during KSM trials.
So how can I still hold that valid cellphone calls were made? I speculate that they were made under duress but under vastly different circumstances. A 2 hour video was posted recently that thankfully was cued to last 20 minutes or so and discusses some of this. The up-shot is that real flights could have been diverted and swapped with other planes, as per Operation Northwoods. The passengers (on the ground) could have been forced into making their calls. Many clues exist to this, but I love this one from the dutiful, loving son talking to his mother (paraphrased): "Hi Mom! It's me. Your son. Mark Bingham."
I do not trust the flight data recorders (FDR) given their sorid history of contradictions, dubious chain-of-custody, suspect analysis, blatant discrepencies in the data, etc. However a clue that they don't represent the alleged hijacked commercial aircraft is that they show that the cock-pit doors were never breeched in flight.
Between the FDR and the cellphone calls, we can legitimately conclude that the alleged commercial aircraft were not the same ones that impacted the towers. Now that this hurdle in our beliefs is overcome, the spectrum is rather broad with respect to the nature of the flying aircraft that did hit the towers.
If I was part of the planning crew for this ruse and if the goals included both audience shock-and-awe as well as plausibility that the damage from impact could be attributed to the initiation of the demise of the towers (which then gives plausibility to the destruction of other buildings closer to the direct monetary goals of the operation -- namely, WTC-4 and WTC-7), then I would be stacking the deck in my favor. Why use a commercial aircraft when the arsenal at my disposal isn't limited to such? Why not add enhancements to ensure velocity, controllability, penetration, and DESTRUCTION?
It is well that the NPT crowd points out the anomalous damage inflicted by wings and tails. To the extent that they want to downplay exponential energy from velocity-squared acting on assumed materials of a commerical aircraft, it is curious that enhancements to a NCPT super aircraft gets brushed off in favor of purposefully stupid mis-interpretation of radar data, grossly limited holographic aspirations, and deceit in the imagery manipulation front. I feel like I'm being played here.
//
x114 Maxwell C. Bridges : Rich Hall's purposeful mal-interpretations of the radar data
2014-02-13
Dear Mr. Gary Jones,
I strongly disagree with your assessment that the "the only small thing I've shown is why I disagree with the radar." Wrong. I find the radar data valid and convincing.
What I disagree with is Rich Hall's purposeful mal-interpretations of the radar data, and why he could seemingly validate the more imprecise radar system and claim the more precise radar data (with more data points) was faked.
You are mistaken on where the onus of proof lies. The onus is on you to prove the viability of holograms. You haven't. Present day limitation on holograms, scaled up for 9/11, would have exposed it on 9/11 as a ruse like strings dangling from a magicians hands. Holograms require a surface for the laser interference to project upon. Linking to documents that proves that projecting holograms is on the military's wish list is good and well, but doesn't substantiate anything real-world except its entry as a wish list item.
You wrote: "I would like to see your sources on this tolerance level and what types of military radar equipment used for monitoring F175 that day. The NTSB report is aimed directly at the South tower, the Military is somewhat not. But within tolerance you say."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_surveillance_radar
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_control_radar_beacon_system
Military Primary Radar (PSR) does not have the accuracy of civilian Secondary Radar (SSR). Transponder Data from the aircraft itself is received from a SSR's interrogation and is far more accurate than random pinging from primary radar.
"In a transponder based system, signals drop off as the inverse square of the distance to the target, instead of the fourth power in primary radars. As a result, effective range is greatly increased for a given power level. The transponder can also send encoded information about the aircraft, such as identity and altitude."
And Mr. Gary Jones, while doing this research legwork for you that you could have done, another error in Rich Hall's mal-interpretation of the 9/11 radar data comes to light. He said that the military radar was based on GPS and should be more accurate. No, the PSR in question was indeed radar that beams a ping of energy out and listens for a return ping.
Mr. Jones wrote: "But the alleged planes speed on 9/11 (560mph) at sea level is impossible."
Mr. Jeffrey Harr is giving me doubts about this. Specifically, the alleged planes flying dead-level at 1000 ft at 560mph is impossible, because the engines didn't have the thrust.
But a plane descending, as the 2nd plane was, could.
Mr. Jones wrote: "Also the impact dynamics are also impossible."
The impact dynamics are anomalous but not impossible. Again, this is where the F4 Sandia tests and the Mythbuster rocket-wedge-into-car are instructive. Unlike crash physics on automobiles where the kinetic energy decelerates and deforms the materials of the vehicle, the crash physics of high velocity impacts has exponentially larger energy to the point of being able to shatter materials (like on the plane). Plus, "equal and opposite", such energy acting on the aluminum clad steel wall assemblies would certainly bend, deform, and break them.
Mr. Jones wrote: "The wreckage found is not registered to any of the alleged F-175 (i.e Wrong Engine Engine Murray St)."
My premise is that real aircraft hit the towers, but not that the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft. I keep saying "enhanced aircraft" or even "plane-looking-missiles." So this piece of evidence remains supportive of real aircraft.
Mr. Jones wrote: "The cartoon cutout of an aluminum through solid steel is just absolutely absurd. Your not into the hologram or CGI idea that is fine. So what are you saying then?"
I've explained this over and over: velocity-squared in the energy equation. Astronauts go to great measures not to lose any tools or even as much as bolt, nut, or washer when out in space doing repairs. Something as small as a screw in space orbit can to massive damage to a space station or shuttle due to its high velocity (squared). NASA goes to great efforts to track debris in space.
So again, learn something from the F4 Sandia and Mythbuster rocket-wedge videos. The energy involved is exponentially greater than the crashes your Toyota Camery would ever experience.
Mr. Jones wrote: "You agree though with the findings of the placements on the 3D model."
Yes, I do. This finding shot a major hole through the NPT argument that implied all of the different video perspectives were CGI faked. They weren't. And they agreed with two sets of radar that pinged off of a real flying object.
Mr. Jones wrote: "Even though physical planes idea grows smaller, the evidence for no planes is growing more and more."
Bullshit. Just the opposite. Remember, I was solidly in the NPT camp have been duped totally by the slick craftiness of September Clues and knowing I was being duped but not how.
Now I know how. By skewing the video perspectives and misrepresenting the physics.
Mr. Jones wrote: "But because you say the 2nd radar path is just the military getting it (according to you) within tolerance of the NTSB data, it must be that the fake plane hologram idea of RH can be thrown out altogether. Sorry mate just doesn't work like that."
Wrong. What gets thrown out is RH's purposeful mal-framing and mal-interpretation of the radar data. If you consider this as the lynchpin to destroy "the fake plane hologram idea," that only goes to show how weak RH's premise was. Holograms get shot down because of their stark technical limitations that make it impossible to scale up without observers being aware that "this massive piece of plastic/glass being dragged through the air for the hologram to project upon" plays a role in the ruse, as does the towing aircraft, that RH says was cloaked. [Okay, RH doesn't mention a massive piece of plastic/glass or a towing aircraft going 500 mph at sea level, but that is what would be required based on present day hologram limitations.]
Mr. Jones wrote: "I've never hidden from the idea that proving holograms was going to be easy. But proving there were no planes on 911 is easy, the evidence points to that conclusion. So if there were no planes what did we all see that day?"
Bullshit. Like I said, I was solidly in the NPT camp, but CGI was doing the ruse in my mind, not holograms. No, over time, the evidence does not point to no planes. It points to NCPT in the form of enhanced "plane-looking-missiles."
Mr. Jones wrote: "Given THE FACT you agree the 3D Video Model Planes placements are correct and proven. We must ask ourselves and so should everyone else."
The 3D video model disproves a corner-stone of the September Clues CGI premise, because they claimed perspectives were all wrong as in a mistake in the hasty creation of amateur videos: dive-bomber, dead-level, and swoop-up. Turns out they weren't mistakes and are accurate depictions in 3D space that differ only in perspective. SC got is wrong... Purposely and with mal-intent.
The way that RH fumbles the radar data, the same: purposely and with mal-intent.
Mr. Jones wrote: "THERE WERE NO PLANES ON 911 SO WHY WOULD THE PERPETRATORS GO TO SUCH LENGTHS TO GET THE VIDEO PLACEMENTS CORRECT FOR ALL OF THE VIDEOS. BUT DO SUCH A SHIT JOB ON THE CRASH PHYSICS AND IMPACTS?"
I respond in like fashion. THERE WERE NO PLANES ON 911 crashing into the Pentagon and Shanksville. But there were planes crashing into the towers. Different makes and models than alleged.
The only SHIT JOB ON THE CRASH PHYSICS AND IMPACTS is your failure to scale up energies appropriately when velocities are massive (>500mph).
//
x115 Maxwell C. Bridges : with absolute confidence
2014-02-13
Dear Mr. Kevin James,
You wrote: "the lead bullet analogy is good as far as it goes, but we should remember the areoynamic shape of the bullet (no wings to be pulled off) and also the mass of the material - lead is soft but heavy. Even then, the bullet doesn't pierce the steel plate, but deforms it. So does this analogy really relate to an aeroplane hitting a tower?"
To clarify, the lead bullet shatters on impact with the steel. Energy is transferred into the the stee plate. The steel plate (in the example I saw, approximately width of length of bullet) blows a bullet-sized blug of itself out the other side and has deformation as "splaying" on that back side.
How does this relate to the plane and the towers, you ask?
Wall assemblies weren't 100% solid steel; ~0 resistance window slits made up 1/2 the face of the towers. Thus an alternating pattern existed of a portion of the wings hitting beams and the next portion traveling right into the building.
For the portions that hit beams, energy acting against the materials of wings was so great, they didn't have time to deform or bounce in the traditional sense of crash physics at low speeds. No, the energies exceeded the strength of the materials and shattered them instantly. Once in small fragments, they still had momentum and could be deflected to go with those wing portions going through the window slits.
Equal and opposite: The energies that shattered wing portions also acted on the steel beams to push, bend, and in cases break them. Just like it wasn't an intact bullet that went clear through the steel plate leaving a bullet (shaped) hole, it wasn't an intact wing "slicing like butter" through the steel beams. Just like the bullet destroyed itself while making a hole, the wings destroyed themselves while plowing a path that appeared as if a wing should be found inside the office space.
Mr. Kevin James asked: "What are the wings of a cruise missile made of?"
I don't know. And I disagree with the implication that follows the question: "They are designed to pierce at high velocity, are they not?"
No, the wings of a cruise missile help it fly. The wings of a cruise missile have no purpose once the target is reached. The boring and bunker-busting come from the fuselage of the cruise missile.
Mr. Kevin James asked: "In other words, is it really possible to reinforce a drone to make that impact hole?"
Indeed, I've speculated into calling it a "plane-looking-missile", but this is meant to open the mind to true functionality (a pilot-less aircraft with a destructive payload), not necessarily how it was created and out of what parts.
I speculate that they modified an existing aircraft for this purpose. Based on what I've written in other threads about energies recently, I'm waffling whether they'd even have to have stronger engines and stronger wings.
But if the wings did need extra umpth and if I were to add some wild-ass speculation to this, it'd begin that the fuel tanks were in the wings. Take the wings off, remove the fuel tanks, and replace with smaller fuel tanks. In the space created, insert stronger material. Put wings back on.
P.S. to Mr. Steve Grage who wrote: "I say with absolute confidence 'No planes hit the WTC's on 9/11 and any and all evidence contrary to such is either a misunderstanding or an outright fabrication.'" Such confidence you probably shouldn't have. As I've been proving, the NPT crowd championing September Clues and/or Rich Hall is who has "misunderstanding or outright fabrication."
//
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : the no planes carousel
2014-02-13
Dear Mr. Ronnie Arnold,
Excellent points. Rational people ought to see it. The problem is with cognitive dissonance, whereby STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS cannot accept evidence contrary to the beliefs without actual physical discomfort in cases.
Those suffering from cognitive dissonance about 9/11 would brush aside all of the points you made as "mere coincidence." Their abiding faith in the goodness, rightness, and perfection of the USA and its elected leaders is SO STRONG, they can in no way entertain even the smallest notion that those leaders were not acting in the best interests of the nation. "Football patriotism" runs very deep, and if the election results can be trusted, a fair share of people would have to admit that they voted once or twice for the criminals that they trusted. This reflects poorly on them and their judgment, and inflicts more pain to their brain to admit this.
An end-around to this USA-ueber-alles cognitive dissonance patriotism is to focus indisputable laws of nature and science. If the public can be made aware that near gravitational acceleration in the destruction of three buildings was observed and is physics-defying if relying on the government's story alone, then a chink is placed in that armor that prevents revelation.
As for the no planes carousel, it is important to see it for what it is: an active disinformation campaign whose purpose isn't to succeed in convincing the nation of that premise. No, its purpose is to distract and wear-down and get the public so pissed off at the ludicracy of it all that they'll switch off to all further considerations into the anomalies of 9/11 that scream insider involvement. Its purpose is to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.
No planes has its disinfo agents and its duped useful idiots; and by golly, I was one of the toughest duped useful idiots who ever championed it! Funny thing is, I knew I was being duped, but not exactly how. I figured if I championed it well in rational debates, either I'd convince my opponents of it with facts, evidence, properly applied science and analysis, or they'd convince me against it with the same. Low-and-behold as maybe a credit to me and an open-mind, the latter eventually prevailed.
This hints at another aspect to it. Part of the reason I championed it -- knowing I was being duped somehow -- was the hard-line closed-mindedness of many of my opponents not just in the realm of NPT, but imagery manipulation, Dr. Wood's collected evidence, nuclear hijinx, etc. There was no half-way about it: all was valid or nothing was valid. No efforts were made to examine nuggets of truth within a blatant disinformation vehicle, to rescue and re-purpose them into a theory that comes closer to the truth.
The 9/11 TM was duped by nano-thermite as well, and the government knows it, which is why they don't get involved to fix that notion. It would leave a void that still needs to be filled.
Nope, what is amazing isn't just the initial efforts to promote NPT via CGI or Holograms at the WTC (to distract from the validity of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville), but the ongoing efforts by agents and duped useful idiots alike, the latter of whom were open-minded enough to consider the concept and of whom one could hope would be open-minded enough to consider evidence to the contrary and be duped into something different and more correct.
P.S. I agree with Ronald Stacker about OBL always being a fabrication.
//
x117 Maxwell C. Bridges : Neutron emissions: the primary output of neutron bombs
2014-02-13
Neutron emissions, Mr. Atahan Ganduu, is the primary output of neutron bombs and is coincidentally UNDESIRABLE in the 9/11 application. Why?
Neutron emissions don't have much umpth to destroy structure but would kill life forms in a miserable fashion. They can make things radioactive temporarily. They are known to cause embrittlement is steel. In the 9/11 application, these highly energetic neutrons are ~directed~ out of the way and are to be thrown away. [A paradigm shift from Dr. Wood's concept of DEW and from "nukes" as hyped that want to use energy efficiently and to its maximum potential.]
Then why bother with neutron nuclear devices if the primary output is so contrary to perceived goals?
Because by wasting so much energy as highly energetic neutrons, the secondary yields of this variant of a fusion device will be reduced to tactical levels and might also be controlled and directed (e.g., shaped-nuclear charge.) These secondary yields include a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Radiation side-effects are reduced and dissipate in 24-48 hours. Furthermore, aiming the escaping neutron in a useful direction means they are less likely to interfere with or kill neighboring nuclear devices.
What gets achieved? Dustification as presented in your pictures.
The heat wave is so hot per device, it causes things painted or attached to the wall assemblies to "steam off" as they fall. It can cause material disassociation. It can produce "steel doobies", horse-shoes, arches, and copious amounts of tiny iron spheres in the dust.
The blast wave is tactical, but sufficient to throw wall assemblies laterally into other buildings quite some distance away. Within the range of destruction of the device, the blast wave pulverizes what the heat way didn't dustify.
Whereas you promote Dr. Wood's work, neither you nor she does anything more than drop dangling-innuendo with regards to what the devices were, how they were powered, how they were configured, where they were placed, how they worked. Not only does Dr. Wood not explain the under-rubble hot-spots, but she does her only little disinfo song-&-dance to question their very existence that is largely ignored because she is ignored.
//
x118 Maxwell C. Bridges : waste energy as highly energetic neutrons
2014-02-13
Dear Mr. Dan Bland,
I can answer your question: neutron nuclear DEW. The rest is re-purposed from a response just moments ago.
Neutron emissions is the primary output of neutron bombs and is coincidentally UNDESIRABLE in the 9/11 application. Why?
Neutron emissions don't have much umpth to destroy structure but would kill life forms in a miserable fashion. They can make things radioactive temporarily. They are known to cause embrittlement is steel. In the 9/11 application, these highly energetic neutrons are ~directed~ out of the way and are to be thrown away. [A paradigm shift from Dr. Wood's concept of DEW and from "nukes" as hyped that want to use energy efficiently and to its maximum potential.]
Then why bother with neutron nuclear devices if the primary output is so contrary to perceived goals?
Because by wasting so much energy as highly energetic neutrons, the secondary yields of this variant of a fusion device will be reduced to tactical levels and might also be controlled and directed (e.g., shaped-nuclear charge.) These secondary yields include a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Radiation side-effects are reduced and dissipate in 24-48 hours. Furthermore, aiming the escaping neutron in a useful direction means they are less likely to interfere with or kill neighboring nuclear devices.
What gets achieved? Dustification as presented in your pictures.
The heat wave is so hot per device, it causes things painted or attached to the wall assemblies to "steam off" as they fall. It can cause material disassociation. It can produce "steel doobies", horse-shoes, arches, and copious amounts of tiny iron spheres in the dust.
The blast wave is tactical, but sufficient to throw wall assemblies laterally into other buildings quite some distance away. Within the range of destruction of the device, the blast wave pulverizes what the heat way didn't dustify.
//
x119 Maxwell C. Bridges : start to read and then you tune out
2014-02-13
Dear Ms. Norma Rae,
I have been active here since January 28 and have been consistently promoting my "neutron nuclear DEW" premise.
Sure enough like clock-work once the subject comes up again, you make a statement to the effect: "What is your theory and I will research it."
February 4 at 1:47pm: "I'm not familiar with neutron devices. I'm open to hearing any theories. It might be better than mine. Is there a good link to learn about neutron devices that u recommend?"
I have done what you asked many times across many discussions, but particularly under my own thread.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
I can't help you, Ms. Rae, if "you start to read my responses and then you tune out." Doesn't bode well for your promise to research it, because you'd have to read what google belches as well in order to understand it.
One could joke that it isn't rocket science, but it is certainly nuclear physics that I have indeed endeavored to bring down to the lay-man's level.
It isn't just you, Ms. Rae, playing such repetitive games. Mr. Atahan Ganduu -- a brain-dead Dr. Wood supporter -- has also been cranking the carousel.
I find it rather curious that each time I legitimately bring up neutron nuclear DEW, a concerted effort by many cranks up to promote Dr. Wood. Worse, is that all who promote Dr. Wood can't defend her work worth beans when challenged. I've read her book and website cover-to-cover and regularly go back to reference things. Her book promotes NO THEORIES and has no connections between the dangling innuendo she drops into concepts, which have the dual hurdles of (1) validity and (2) applicability.
//
x120 Maxwell C. Bridges : stand on Dr. Wood's and the Anonymous Physicist's shoulders
2014-02-13
Whereas Dr. Wood's work is promoted here, none of her champions nor she does anything more than drop dangling-innuendo with regards to what the devices were, how they were powered, how they were configured, where they were placed, how they worked. Not only does Dr. Wood not explain the under-rubble hot-spots, but she does her only little disinfo song-&-dance to question their very existence that is largely ignored because she is ignored.
But I am an ardent champion of Dr. Wood's disinformation vehicle, because it brings together all sorts of evidence that support nuclear contentions. I call it "neutron nuclear DEW" and stand on Dr. Wood's and the Anonymous Physicist's shoulders to take researching the causes of 9/11 to the next level.
//
x121 Maxwell C. Bridges : throwing in the towel against "a fucking tosser"
2014-02-13
Dear Mr. Gary Jones,
I particularly enjoyed the second half of your last posting. Throwing in the towel, eh?
If I am really such "a fucking tosser" (whatever that is) and "a loser and without doubt STUPID" and "a troll", instead of proving yourself incapable of reasoned, rational debate, YOU SHOULD BLOCK ME. Problem solved.
//
x122 Maxwell C. Bridges : disturbed that cold fusion isn't mentioned
2014-02-14
Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "Mr. Bridges, I've reviewed your blog and some of your comments and am very disturbed that at no time you EVER mention cold fusion or LENR."
That's not correct. I went through the cold fusion or LENR carousel a couple of years ago. I was very open-minded about it, but failed to find very many functional, real-world instances of it being used for power generation or weapons.
Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "Perhaps some form of cold fusion technology that produces Tritium with no ionizing radiation (stuff you can measure with a Geiger counter)."
If you can find proof to your speculation, I'll be happy to ammend my premise.
Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "Can you explain yourself?"
Just because my toolbox has a socket-set and new fangled ratchet wrench, doesn't mean that the application can't be better served by a good old fashion cressant wrench.
Neutron bombs have a much longer history than your LENR speculation. As such, many more tests and tweaks have been performed. Star War's Excalibur was a real proposal that leads right into the configuration of neutron devices that I propose.
Neutron devices is a much more glaring omission on Dr. Jones' part in his efforts for both the government's story and the 9/11TM to "debunk" that nuclear devices were used.
Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "I was suspect by your lack of physics common sense but now think it's a ploy."
LENR has nothing to do with physics common sense, if such a thing exists.
//
x123 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ganduu Carousel #3: what is the evidence?
2014-02-14
Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu,
You ask: "Did what exactly? What is the evidence that any of those conclusions is what happened to the building?"
I tire of your games. If you were sincere in your questions, you would have found the answers in the top-level posting of this discussion, in its links to my blog, and more importantly in the carousel discussions that you have been trying to crank.
And when the tables are turned to Dr. Wood's book that you promote, you cannot answer the same questions that you pose to me. Unlike you, I've read Dr. Wood's book cover-to-cover and know that she proposes nothing (but dangling innuendo) and purposely does not connect anything into a cohesive whole.
//
x124 Maxwell C. Bridges : so little has been devoted
2014-02-14
Dear Ms. Norma Rae,
So little has been devoted to analyzing the leveling of WTC-4's main edifice at a line with its North Annex, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the crater in WTC-6. I thank Dr. Wood, her website, and her book for bringing this to our attention.
Whereas I promote neutron nuclear DEW for the towers and by extension feel they could be applicable to these instances, I know that this doesn't have to be the case. To be sure, these instances are about the only valid ones of any "beams from space" and the like that gets shoved onto Dr. Wood. (The destruction of the towers and WTC-7 happened from within, not from the "tippy-top-down.") These three ignored instances kind of do show something from the "tippy-top-down" and therefore could really be what Dr. Wood hints at.
In conclusion, I am open for science and evidence to dupe me another way -- even into the realm of theories that debunkers pin on Dr. Wood. However, nano-thermite didn't do it.
//
x125 Maxwell C. Bridges : avoid explaining the fact not mentioned
2014-02-15
Dear Mr. Steve Grage,
Mr. Grage wrote: "Mr. Bridges, you avoid explaining the fact that Cold Fusion or LENR is not mentioned in your current blog. It is correct statement."
Here's me ~not~ avoiding explaining the fact that Cold Fusion or LENR is not mentioned in the top-level, current posting of my blog. It's not my hobby-horse. If you want to prove that Cold Fusion or LENR was involved in 9/11, by all means, slap a saddle on that LENR hobby-horse and take it for a ride!
I'm such a gracious fellow, I'll even let you borrow a whole slew of tetris evidence blocks that I have been stacking to build my neutron nuclear DEW argument. Whichever theory stack -- your Cold Fusion/LENR or my neutron nuclear DEW -- addresses all of the evidence and has the fewest gaps has a higher probability of being correct.
Mr. Grage wrote: "You talk nuclear physics, with a neutron bomb speculation, and you fail to mention cold fusion technology. I don't think so."
In your crafty analysis, Mr. Grage, you fail to mention that cold fusion technology is not my hobby-horse, not my passion, not my "thang." And, I don't think it is applicable to 9/11, but I'm open-minded, will give your arguments fair consideration, and if you convince me, I'll change my views and publicly apologize for having led others astray.
Mr. Grage wrote: "I have an idea, let's talk about the book 'Fire from Ice' and you can explain to fellow truthers why this information is not relevant."
Here's an improvement to Mr. Grage's idea. Let's have Mr. Grage give a bulleted synopsis of the "Fire and Ice" book (that I am unfamiliar with). Mr. Grage can then explain to fellow truthers why this information supposedly ~is~ relevant.
Mr. Grage wrote: "Afterall, it's the same Steven E Jones that sabotaged the Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion research that leads the A/E 911 effort today. We'll discuss the facts and evidence together for the truthers of this site."
Don't be waiting for me, Mr. Grage. Create yourself a top-level posting and go to town on this second hobby-horse, too!
Mr. Grage wrote: "Perhaps you'll claim ignorance that you're not aware of this material."
Absolutely no "perhaps" about it, Mr. Grage. I plead complete and total ignorance to the book "Fire from Ice"!!! However, if the subject of the book happens to be Dr. Steven Jones' efforts with regards to Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion research, I do have some knowledge of the matter.
If we assume such speculation is valid, it is but one data point in the negative trend line of Dr. Jones. Consistent and in character.
If some argues that it is invalid, it doesn't take away from that aforementioned negative trend for Dr. Jones make up of many other data points (e.g., no nukes, nano-thermite.)
Mr. Grage wrote: "Nice ploy Mr. neutron man."
Please, Mr. Grage, be nice. Call me "Mr. Bridges." It is more becoming of both of us.
Mr. Grage wrote: "Mr. Bridges, Tritium has so little ionizing radiation, it can't be measured with Geiger counter. Doesn't that count?"
Go back and do some more homework on tritium and Geiger counters, Mr. Grage. Just because a Geiger counter doesn't measure what little ionizing radiation is produced from tritium, doesn't mean that tritium has no radiation badness to be concerned about. A Geiger counter won't read neutron radiation either, for that matter.
Mr. Grage wrote: "Also Mr. Bridges, explain any evidence you can corroborate w.r.t. heat of a neutron bomb on 9/11."
The steel doobies. The arches. The horseshoe. The meteorite.
The tiny iron spheres that had a significant percentage in the dust, such as that analyzed by the RJ Lee Group from Banker's Trust Building.
The metals in the dust samples from Dr. Cahill.
The ejected wall assemblies that were ejected and fell to the ground with steam, smoke, and dust trailing off of them from the entire internal face.
Mr. Grage wrote: "I can provide corroborated evidence of molecular dissociation."
Good for you. Might also be what a point-blank-range shot of highly energetic neutrons could do together with intense heat, but I speculate.
Mr. Grage wrote: "Perhaps with similar artifacts you think are because of heat."
Perhaps. Perhaps not as well.
Mr. Grage wrote: "I'm trying to lead people to the truth, you must be the other guy."
No, I'm not the other guy. I'm just another duped useful idiot. Convince me of your points, and I'll be duped anew that way. I can change my mind. Let us hope that you and your new-found hobby-horse can lead people to the truth.
Meanwhile, neutron nuclear DEW remains on the table.
//
x126 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ganduu Carousel #4: are you a bot?
2014-02-15
Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu,
Are you a bot? You don't seem to tire in posting the same questions over and over. Worse, you ignore the answers already given.
Mr. Ganduu wrote: "For Mr Bridges, if you were inside a building set with neutron bombs. Would you survive the destruction of the building? Of course I'm referring to jay Jonas and others who walked out of stairwell b"
What part of "neutron nuclear DEW" don't you understand, Mr. Ganduu? Could it possibly be the "DEW" acronym, which stands for "directed energy weapon?"
I've stated many times: (1) they directed the highly energetic neutrons upwards; (2) this then contributed to directing the tactical secondary blast and heat waves. Shaped nuclear charge, anyone? (3) Some of the devices failed, which led to the nuclear fizzle at the hot-spots.
The firemen in the stairwell were below the successful neutron devices that shot in the other direction up from their heads. Maybe a failed device in their vacinity saved them?
//
x127 Maxwell C. Bridges : rolled into dobbies before they hit the ground
2014-02-16
Dear Ms. Norma Rae,
Your schematics of the pre-assembled wall panels with 3 vertical beams and 3 horizontal spandrels is indeed the pre-demolition depiction of what I'm talking about when I mention "steel dobbies." However the post demolition depiction of more than just a few of these has the two outer beams wrapped around the inner beam and held in place by three spandrels, like rubberbands holding asparagas at the super market.
They are found on top of the piles. One was even augered into the ground a bit, resting against a building on Liberty Street. These two tidbits are important to know, because they'd had to be rolled into dobbies before they hit the ground.
I say that the tactical heat wave side-effect of my neutron nuclear DEW instantaneously heated the sides of the steel wall assemblies to very very high temperatures. Suffient for wall assemblies to be still burning off asbestos and paint streaming smoke, dust, and steam as they fell to the ground as seen in many images. And sufficent for spandrels to be made pliable for when the tactical blast wave side-effect of my neutron nuclear DEW exerted powerful lateral forces, forming the "steel doobies" and throwing heavy steel assemblies and pieces of the towers great distances, as seen in the Winter Garden pictures.
In this picture, the "steel doobies" can be found going at 2 o'clock from the center of the red line indicating "plaza level".
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1494187117475084&set=p.1494187117475084&type=1&theater
//
x128 Jeffrey Harr : the energy of 95 tons of TNT
2014-02-16
Jeffrey Harr Sorry- This won't fit on a meme. (Note: 4*10^11 joules = the energy of 95 TONS of TNT). Yes, people. 95 TONS of TNT.
"[When] the upper part of the building started moving, the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object."
"To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage."
"When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity -- and therefore its momentum -- increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time."
"To put it another way, the potential energy of the building mass, the energy of position it had due to its height and the pull of gravity, was converted into kinetic energy, or energy of motion (the report puts the total potential energy for WTC 1 at 4*10^11 joules)."
about an hour ago · Like
Jeffrey Harr Now, understand- if your response is, "No, it was a DEW that no one has ever seen and can't be scientifically explained", you'll understand why I'll call bullshit.
Jeffrey Harr Okay Ronald- You didn't read it or you don't understand it. You're fired.
x129 Maxwell C. Bridges : the potential energy of the building mass
2014-02-16
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Harr,
I'll refrain from speculating into Mr. Harr's character as exhibited by his 95 TONS of TNT comment, but readers should.
For the sake of discussion, let us assume the validity of the 95 TONS of TNT 4*10^11 joules.
"The potential energy of the building mass, the energy of position it had due to its height and the pull of gravity, was converted into kinetic energy, or energy of motion (the report puts the total potential energy for WTC 1 at 4*10^11 joules)."
The physics issue is that this is the total energy of the system, and there are only so many different ways in which it can be consumed: pulverizing content, ejecting content laterally, and falling at gravitational acceleration. Worse, the phrase "near gravitational acceleration" implies that it consumes the vast majority of the total energy of that original system -- potential energy being converted into kinetic energy --, leaving little energy for pulverizing content or ejecting content laterally. Because video evidence proves content pulverization and ejection, energy from other sources had to be added.
Energy FROM OTHER SOURCES had to be added. Those sources?
Neutron nuclear DEW is my wild-ass, bat-shit crazy speculation into energy source.
//
x130 Maxwell C. Bridges : stoking the crowd
2014-02-17
Dear Ms. Norma Rae,
You asked: "Why didn't the wings that are filled with fuel, explode when they impacted the steel columns? The whole plane is inside of the tower and gouging the other side wall before the RED Fireball takes place outside the 1st wall."
Because jet fuel is not as volatile as gasoline. Whereas the wall assemblies shredded the wings causing the momentum of the jet fuel to carry it within the towers, it wasn't until the engines' flaming exhaust entered the towers that the spilled jet fuel could be ignited.
Ms. Rae wrote: "The explosion should be almost instantaneously (nano-seconds)."
This is a wrong assumption. Something needed to ignite the jet fuel.
Ms. Rae wrote: "And how in the world did the nose survive to make it out the other side?"
This was a clever piece of disinformation foisted on us by the September Clues crew. What looked like a nose was merely the ejection of smoke from the explosion. If the nose of the aircraft had truly made it through one side and out the other of the towers, it would have kept going instead of disappearing in the growing explosive cloud.
//
x131 Maxwell C. Bridges : bent over
2014-02-17
Jeffry Harr posted a color-coded image of the damage to the wall assemblies of one of the towers (WTC-1?).
An important aspect of this is to note when "breaks" occurred at natural boundaries between assemblies. What this graphic doesn't show are the assemblies that were bent over.
For example, look at the green assembly at r97:c130. The line at its botton was where it normally bolted with the purple assembly below it. Was the purple assembly cut at (r96:c130) or did its bolts sever and then get bent over and inward?
The number of wall assemblies completely missing indicates to me that they may have been pushed completely into the building once the connecting bolts were severed.
Also, note the seeming slicing (r95:c139) of another purpose wall assembly by a wing. What is noteworthy here is that the spandrels represent where the floor slabs were. The spandrels backed by the floor slap would serve as 1/2 of a scissors/sheer operation.
We can leave it open regarding speculation into the type of aircraft. But all of the talk about the impact defying the laws of physics I think is baloney, because even those well versed in crash physics do not often get to study crashes whose energy is exponentially larger than the inherent static strength of the materials involved. (In other words, we're not talking two cars having a fender bender at 40 mph closing speeds, where we expect deformation, deceleration, and bouncing.) The excessive energy acting on wings (to shatter them) as well as on steel (to push and cut) should not be under-estimated.
//
x132 Maxwell C. Bridges : strength of the objects compared to the energy of the collision
2014-02-17
Ms. Norma Rae wrote: "At a bare minimum, the TAIL FIN of any plane would have RIPPED OFF from the body and flung back if it hit STEEL. It is the PURE LACK OF NEWTON'S 3RD LAW that tells me NO PLANE hit the towers."
I disagree. First of all, the fuselage was already clearing a path into the building. When the damage is studied, one notes the number of places where damaged happened at the bolts that connected wall assemblies.
Secondly, collisions are elastic, inelastic, and a combination of the two. Factors like the strength of the objects compared to the energy of the collision determines whether you'll see "bounce".
The tail fin of the plane (a) was following more or less a path plowed by the fuselage that severed bolts and pushed whole wall assemblies around, (b) wasn't impacting a solid wall but a 50/50 steel/window wall, and (c) was traveling at a velocity that would exert energies in excess of its inherent material strength causing shattering (breaking of bonds within). In order for the tail fin to bounce, as a whole, its material strength would have to be much greater than the collision energies.
The physics of high velocity impacts appears to differ from low velocity collisions, because at low velocities the inherent connections of the material are not challenged with sufficient energy to cause shattering. Low velocities result in deformation, bounce, and some breaking of materials. At high velocities, energy is sufficiently high to break materials without going through phases of deformation and bounce.
This highlights another aspect of this. Experienced pilots at a simulator could not manually target the towers and hit them reliable at the reported speed. Landing velocities were required for them to succeed. However, landing velocities -- with less energy -- would have resulted in exactly the type of crash physics that you talk about: deceleration, deformation, and things like tail fins breaking off (if not part of the fuselage). On the whole, it could have left too much evidence or lack thereof that could expose the ruse. Ramp up the velocity and control it by computer, then the "penetration" and "pulverized destruction" of plane are guaranteed, followed by decimation of the towers to destroy what's left.
By the way, the proposed crash test of the rocket wing into the wall assemblies? As depicted, it would be wrong, because the spandrel represents a plain of concrete backing it. Plus, the columns should be bolted and not fixed within the supporting structure. However, I am confident that even when executed as depicted, (a) the rocket wing will be shattered into nothingness (b) while the beams in the assemblies suffer breaks and major deformation. I'd even wager that the structure built to support the wall assemblies also deforms.
//
x133 Maxwell C. Bridges : what strategic benefit would holograms have over airplanes?
2014-02-17
I admit my proclivities to get duped by things. I'm willing to believe that the military has a whole bunch of high tech stuff (that maybe they obtained from aliens in exchange for human abductions by aliens...)
... But that doesn't mean that state of holographic technologies would have been capable of pulling off the 9/11 ruse of aircraft flying into the towers. I don't think it is there today, either. When you look closely at all modern examples, there is always a surface or something for the computer-controlled lasers to have their interference depicted on. (When the surface is clear, we don't notice it as much. We assume it is to keep spectators out of the "laser area." But it is very much an optical illusion.) That surface required for projection, however, is a major limitation when scaling up holograms to put one in the sky that would be be convincing to a large audience from lots of different perspectives, some from miles away.
This is where we have to pull out Occam Razor. What strategic benefit would holograms have over airplanes, that themselves might have been enhanced? It isn't as if the $2.3 Trillion in missing DoD funds couldn't afford them?
Back when I was a champion of NPT, I was caught under the spell of Hollywood-style CGI. At the time, this was convincing and seemingly Occam Razor, because (1) hijacking a plane, (2) getting it to fly its route unhindered, (3) accurately targeting the towers, and (4) causing sufficient believable damage for the initiation of the towers' demolition were all large risks. When the "mistakes" of the CGI were pointed out due to the haste in the pixel creation, man, I was all over it. This seemed Occam Razor.
Alas, it took awhile for the CGI "mistakes" to be unraveled as merely differences in camera perspectives. It took awhile for crash physics from large velocities to sink in. CGI for the planes lost its luster, making real planes still the Occam Razor solution.
The hologram push, particularly as championed by Rich Hall, becomes a blatantly obvious disinfo ploy. He has to play off discrepancies in two sets of radar data (that were actually consistent and within tolerances of being co-linear with one another); he has to hint that the more accurate set of radar data with more data points and matching videos was faked, while the 1400 foot offset path from the military radar was real. And then it depended on a cloaked plane (from all angles) projecting a hologram without present day limitations of a projection surface and visible from all angles as a plane.
//
x134 Maxwell C. Bridges : when energies can shatter material
2014-02-17
Mr. Norma Rae asked: "So are you telling me that if I throw a plate at a steel column, it will shatter at low velocities, but at X velocity it will transform into a missile and create a hole in the steel column?"
No, I am ~not~ saying this at all. I think the shattering plate contorts the meaning.
Here's a better analogy. If a rubber ball is propelled at a steel column at low velocities, the ball will bounce and nothing happends to the steel column.
As the velocity of a propelled rubber ball is increased, eventually the rubber ball no longer bounces as a whole. Instead, the rubber ball shatters (e.g., energy of collision is greater than structural energy of the ball) and its pieces may bounce.
As the velocity is increased to something very large, the rubber ball shatters into even small pieces. HOWEVER, at certain large velocities, the energy of collision will start taking a toll on the steel column despite the decimation of the rubber ball. You'll start to notice dents and deformation in the steel column.
At extremely large velocities (e.g., well beyond those of 9/11), a rubber ball will be able to punch a hole right through the steel column. The rubber ball won't actually pierce the column; it gets decimated on the forward side. But it transfers energy into the steel sufficient to break bonds and send a plug of steel out the back side.
The aluminum and sheet-metal wing is not a rubber ball. Still, at low velocities it will deform and bounce.
As the velocity is increased, the wing starts to break instead of just deforming and bouncing. For the sake of discussion, we might even say that the velocity when wings break is just sufficient to shear bolts and to start deforming (e.g., bending) steel columns.
As the velocity is increased to very large numbers, the wing shatters before it can deform or bounce. The energy associated with these velocities would in turn (Newton's law of equal and opposite) shear connecting bolts, violently push wall assemblies, bend steel, etc. I encourage readers to study the pictures to see where "breaks" occured. What many attribute to cutting is in many cases shearing of bolts and then push or bending. This doesn't require as much energy. In a few cases, beams are actually cut, but some were by engines or fuselage. I've notice one created by wings, but it was at a spandrel/floor boundary that itself would have served as half a shear.
The No-Planers make a lot of noise about physics defying anomalies, but it is predicated on physics understanding at lower velocities and/or lower energies that aren't at limits that test the very cohesiveness of the materials involved. When energies can shatter material, you're not going to observe materials bouncing as a whole. And at such energies, what gets impacted isn't without damage either.
//
x135 Maxwell C. Bridges : the true nature of the aircraft that hit the towers remains suspect
2014-02-17
Ms. Norma Rae wrote: "You believe they were Military Jets/Drone that hit the towers, so why do you think Steel Columns wouldn't cause the same effect as the concrete slab?"
The definition of "military jet/drone" is actually very wide. A mondo military cargo plane is also technically a "military jet" and can be flown remotely if needed, making it in cases fall into the drone category.
What I believe is that the government has offered insufficient evidence of the alleged hijackers entering the alleged aircraft and flying the entirety of their alledged course. The improbable cellphone calls somewhat seals the deal that the alleged commercial plane was swapped, as suggested by the Northwood's document from the 1960's.
Ergo, the true nature of the aircraft that hit the towers remains suspect. If the definition of military jet is restricted to fighter aircraft or a military drone (e.g., predator), I disagree; too many pieces of video showing something closer to a commercial aircraft. Airplane manufacturers don't just sell to airlines, but to the military, too.
Now as to the Sandia F4 test and the concrete slab, it is important to note the differences. My understanding of the Sandia F4 test was that their purpose was to guage what re-enforcements would be needed to protect atomic plants from Kamakazi jets. The concrete slab had no window slits. It was anchored pretty solidly. There was no place for F4 debris to go but up and around.
On the flip side, the very design of the towers' wall assemblies had built in failure points at the locations where bolts held them together. Window slits made up 50% the face of the walls. Other than hitting floor slabs on edge, a significant portion of the wall would allow decimated aircraft debris to pass, when fuselage or engines didn't already push a path in. [Others have posted pictures, however, of debris that came raining down on the impact side.]
//
x136 Maxwell C. Bridges : the very unique engineering design of the towers caused them to collapse
2014-02-17
Mr. Jeffrey Harr wrote: "I personally believe that the combination of damage from the planes, the fires and the very unique engineering design of the towers caused them to collapse."
Certainly, everything leading up to the INITIATION OF THE COLLAPSE is where I would have been happy to be duped by the government's story.
But the government's story FAILS miserably after INITIATION of the collapse. In fact, NIST purposely didn't go there. They came up with multiple lame explanations (like the pancake theory which had no relationship with observed evidence.) They don't ever talk about the destruction of the towers happening at near gravitational acceleration.
To be sure, this is where Mr. Harr gets hung up by his own petards when he wrote elsewhere: "Without science to support your claims, you have squat."
Despite Mr. Harr talking big about the TNT equivalent power of the potential energy of the towers, I could indeed be duped into believing that the towers with gravity could destroy themselves... if the destruction would have taken 1/2 a minute or more.
But no, the pulverization happened at near gravitational acceleration (9-15 seconds depending on who's running the stop-watch). This means that nearly 100% of whatever equivalent TNT power was inherent in the potential energy of the towers WAS CONSUMED achieving that near gravitational acceleration. Very little energy from that TNT equivalent could be used to pulverize debris, to eject debris laterally, and to remove structure from the path of greatest resistence to allow near gravitational acceleration.
To be sure, pulverization is a huge energy sink. To be sure, when content is ejected laterally, not only does that consume energy but it also reduces the mass acting like a pile-driver on the lower part of the towers. The towers were over-designed with regards to the loads they could carry, and the lower portion was stronger than the upper portion. With gravity alone -- Mr. Harr's and the government's premise -- no way could the upper floors pile-driver through all of the lower floors; either the destruction would have been arrested or the pile-driver shucked off into the path of least resistance.
Therefore, energy had to be added.
Mr. Harr ought to have the pedigree to understand this. The fact that he misuses physics and "TNT equivalents of potential energy" to blind us with pseudo-science that doesn't have to balance Newton's energy equations... well, if it doesn't reflect poorly on Mr. Harr's intelligence, then it exposes his (paid) agenda that he would debate repeatedly so energetically on these themes and not ever once be convinced of the errors in his pseudo-science.
Not that this should disqualify Mr. Harr from posting here, but it should frame his postings appropriately and highlight where he's willing to bend the truth.
//
x137 Maxwell C. Bridges : held back by "cognitive dissonance" and "misguided patriotism"
2014-02-17
Yes, Mr. Philip Joy, what you write regarding the reasons for having 9/11 discussions today still hold water and is a driving motivating factor for me and my meager efforts.
However, it goes beyond holding someone accountable. Pragmatically, I see them getting "natural caused" or "suicided" or dying of old age well before the corrupted courts can get the wheels of justice to move on them.
No, the revelations of 9/11 -- when not held back by "cognitive dissonance" and "misguided patriotism" -- should lead to a radical reformation of our society and its governance. Root causes won't stop at figure-head leaders in government, but ought to follow the money to the banks and have them brought low.
Publicly funded elections and instant-run-off elections (and hand-counting the votes) not only would take money out of politics, but would elect leaders with moral fiber. Corporations wouldn't maintain the rights of citizens, nor would they be able to write legislation and pay for its passage. Laws would be struck down and other inacted for the benefit of the people.
And many agencies and institutions ought to be voted out of existance.
How ludicrous is it that defense budget as compared to the combined total of all other nations? How ludicrous is the Federal Reserve and the income tax? How ludicrous is the war on drugs and the wars in general, and the things against international laws, against our own laws, against our own religious, spiritual, and/or moral understanding of what is good? How ludicrous is our throw-away society and an economy based on unbridled growth?
The status-quo has so much to fear.
And the movement to get society where it needs to be will be frought with infiltrators and usurpers, who will steer change away from meaningful things and will allow the guilty to disband and re-group under different names and more degrees of separation, but the same.
True, I believe that 9/11 was nuclear in nature. But the figurative fall-out from this revelation ought to be massive change.
//
x138 Maxwell C. Bridges : the word of BYU nuclear physicist
2014-02-17
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Harr,
Thank you for clearing up that a paid agenda isn't what causes you to be so science-challenged in defending your position, and that of the government.
You write: "my research results are based on and in line with the vast majority of respected mechanical engineers, including WTC engineer, Leslie Robertson."
Indeed, and many of these same people have been given assignments with limited scopes that they were successful in writing plausible analysis around.
You write: "The amount of respected professionals who believe that nukes of any sort were used couldn't fill a Denny's."
And why is that?
Anybody with nuclear credentials knows what side their bread is buttered on, and have probably signed statements regarding keeping national secrets.
How did those without nuclear credentials come to the belief that "no nukes of any sort were used?" They took the word of BYU nuclear physicist, Dr. Steven Jones when he entered the 9/11 Truth Movement. For those science-challenged or just skimming, Dr. Jones made a convincing case against nukes and filled the void with nano-thermite.
Alas, for those who didn't just skim, weren't science-challenged, and explored the references that Dr. Jones used to make his "no nuke" argument, very quickly the deceit bubbles to the surface. For example, the limited scoping of the tritium report (to attribute tritium exclusively to presumed content of the WTC and to being non-health impacting) fulfilled its speculative goals, but can't be used as the final, authoritative word on tritium, because they didn't measure it in a timely fashion, they didn't measure it everywhere (like at hot-spots), and they stopped taking samples when levels were below EPA thresholds.
Dr. Jones never mentioned neutron devices in his famous no-nukes paper, which is pretty glaring.
The works of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood (and September Clues) are going to go down in history as some of the most successful disinformation ever undertaken. The two are like two opposing pincers on the same tongs to keep us away from contemplating nuclear causes. Oh, how they avoid each other and only talk about each other in under-handed fashion. Were they sincere, they would go into the details (as I have done) and debunked each other legitimately. But no, they can't be guilty of taking each other's disinformation and limited hang-outs out of play.
Be that as it may, you overstate your case about how many (or few) it takes to fill a Denny's.
And for all of your potifications about not being a government agent, you still haven't addressed the error in your physics and what the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy means when near gravitational acceleration is observed, as well as content pulverization and content ejection.
If you can't admit from the high school physics that energy had to be added, then... then... then... you won't just prove yourself a science-challenged idiot, but an asshole as well.
//
x139 Maxwell C. Bridges : the energy available
2014-02-17
Dear Ms. Norma Rae,
You need not be concerned about the speed of sound or the speed of light. You just need to be concerned with what velocity-squared does to energy.
You want me to speculate what would happen to a plane (fuselage, wings) and to steel with various impact velocities.
KE = (1/2)m(v^2)
KE[100] = (1/2)m(10,000)
KE[150] = (1/2)m(22,500) = 2.25xKE[100]
KE[200] = 4xKE[100]
KE[300] = 9xKE[100]
KE[400] = 16xKE[100]
KE[500] = 25xKE[100]
The point is that energies of WTC planes' impact was 25 times greater than energies of planes coming in for a normal landing, which was the scenario of the bomber-into-Empire-State as well as part of the design criteria of the WTC.
If we assume accidents at airports on the ground (e.g., planes running into concourse as an image depicted) happened at speeds less than 20mph, the WTC planes had 625 times the energy available.
You ask, "at what velocity does the plane overpower the steel?"
It depends on what you mean by "overpower". Overpower can mean:
- "break bolts allowing assemblies to be pushed out of the way."
- "steel bends."
- "steel breaks or severs."
- Combination of all of the above.
Heretofore much of the comments by NPTers about "physics defying" feats from the plane impacts were couched as "aluminum cans cutting steel like a knife through butter."
Closer inspection reveals sections of the wall assembly severed at their bolt connections, sections that had bent beams, and sections with broken beams. [Some of the broken beams were in sections that the fuselage or engines hit.]
Others have already published references to the relative strengths of steel and material in airplanes. You can google it further.
Just from the Sandia F4 alone, I'd say 500mph is sufficient to overwhelm the materials of a plane. As for the wall assemblies, that speed was great enough to sever bolts, push assemblies, and bend beams.
But rest assured, the perpetrators for sure did the math beforehand. And if they were to have found the energies of a standard aircraft (landing velocity) insufficient, their plans had room to compensate through (1) the thrust capabilities of the engines to get higher velocities, (2) structural elements of the aircraft, (3) payloads of the aircrafts, and (4) other hidden assistance at the target.
You wrote: "Structural Steel Columns are comparable to that slab of concrete."
Yes and no. I repeat, the surface of the beams in the wall assemblies covered only 50% their width, with window openings covering the other 50%. Also, wall assemblies had built-in failure points in the bolts that attached assemblies together. A good portion of the impact evidence displays whole sections missing (e.g., pushed in), indicating the steel of the bolts failed, but not necessarily the beams of the assembly.
//
x140 Maxwell C. Bridges : exactly what configuration would result in sections that trail disintegrating plaster and smoke?
2014-02-17
Thomas Cooper asked on February 16: "so what pulverized the drywall to dust? why wouldn't the drywall fall straight down with the building (with gravity) rather than turn itself into dust and blow out blocks away from the collapse? If you've ever broken up drywall, you know the paper skin tends to keep it together in big chunks."
Kim Mantenga wrote: "I just think the falling column sections trailing disintegrating plaster is not a valid part of the Truther theory. But God knows there is PLENTY else to support the Truther view. I just don't think the "smoke" (plaster) billowing behind all the falling exteriors belongs on our giant heap of Truther evidence."
Ms. Mantenga, evidence is evidence, and you want to sweep it from the table and call it invalid? Why?
Whatever "Truther theory" is going to succeed, it has to address all of the evidence. Lord knows that those defending the official story can't address this anomaly.
Unfortunately, super-duper nano-thermite (with any combination of chemical based explosives and incendiaries) can't really explain it, either. Exactly what configuration would result in sections that trail disintegrating plaster and smoke?
These same mechanisms can't explain the "steel doobies" either.
The Woodsian supporters want us to believe -- with some validity -- that directed energy weapons could achieve this. Imagine beaming energy at a specific frequency in a targeted fashion with a cone of destruction within the towers. Like a microwave oven, it could heat up water molecules in content but with the distinction that such water molecules are heated up instantly into steam, whose expanding pressure blow apart the very same content (e.g., concrete, drywall, humans). Alas, the Woodsian's are all hand-wavey about where the energy for this would come from (Hurricane Erin, Tesla fields in space, cold fusion), yet very little can be proven real-world operational to the scale required for the massive energy sinks observed.
I used to be a Woodsian support and still champion the evidence from Dr. Wood's book. But now I champion neutron nuclear DEW. Although the highly energetic neutrons consume the lion's share of the fusion-type detonation, they are thrown away by aiming them upwards in DEW-like fashion. Why? Because it isn't as if aimed neutrons can do much physical damage, life-forms excepted. By throwing it away, the tactical side-effects of the neutron detonation in the forms of a heat and blast wave are scaled down to tactical levels.
And by golly, the intense (tactical) heat of such a detonation could certainly heat the insides of wall assemblies to the point where they burn-off that which was affixed to them, from paint to plaster to fire-proofing, etc. and such smoking, steaming remants would trail off of them as they fell. The heat could make spandrel's pliable so that wall assemblies could be rolled into those pesky "steel doobies" from laterial forces of the (tactical) blast wave. And gee, the only real issue with the supply of energy to accomplish this from a nuclear detonation is the excessive amount of it, which is why the primary purpose of the neutron DEW portion of this is to throw away the neutrons in a useful direction.
In summary, Ms. Mantenga, if you are a real Truther, open-minded, intelligent, and all that, you don't have the luxury of saying "the falling column sections trailing disintegrating plaster is not a valid part of the Truther theory." Nope, if it happened and we have evidence thereof, then it is valid. And the only thing that might be invalid is the Truther theory that doesn't address it.
//
x141 Maxwell C. Bridges : several images of "steel doobies"
2014-02-17
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1494187117475084&set=p.1494187117475084&type=1&theater
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s320/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5320.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3926.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5326.jpg
Here are several images of "steel doobies":
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1494187117475084&set=p.1494187117475084&type=1&theater?
Above, look for the middle of the red line. The steel doobie is at 2 o'clock from there.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s320/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5326.jpg
Above, look just up from lower left-hand corner.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png
Above, this one is augered into the ground next to a building on Liberty Street.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5320.jpg
Above, look just above the orange Home Depot bucket.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3926.jpg
Above, look towards top left corner.
There may be more, I'm sure. In fact, the first one I didn't notice until Saturday or so.
//
x142 The Participants : not a valid part of the Truther theory
2014-02-17
Kim Mantenga Okay *takes another deep breath, LOL*...
A few days ago, Dan Bland made a post about the exterior column panels emitting (from all over their surfaces) a smoke like substance as they fell during the collapse. His specific questions regarding this were : "If the steel in this photo is being attacked by a thermitic reaction then will someone explain how people were able to gain access to the exterior steel walls and apply the thermite? If you look closely it seems the steel is smoking from one end to the other. Can you imagine how much work it would have taken to apply thermite to all the exterior walls of BOTH Towers?"
Trying to answer this---combined with so many of responses by all of you on both sides of the argument, with MUCH help from Jeffrey Harr (who has been fabulous despite not sharing most of my views), has led me to one piece of the puzzle, then another, and yet more questions, more conclusions....and much more learning. (And it's really fun ! )
Anyway, I found this one webpage that has a diagram on it of a cross section of the exterior box columns : http://911research.wtc7.net/mir.../guardian2/wtc/clifton.htm
Check out the 3rd drawn diagram down... This is a cross section of a completely assembled exterior box column with all coverings. Note the thick layer of "Fire resistant vermiculite plaster" covering the outer 3 sides of each of them (#38), as well as "Special fire-resistant plaster" covering their entire inside surface (#39).
Anyone notice how almost ALL the exterior steel columns were TOTALLY BARE in all the pictures of post-collapse rubble ? Also, vermiculite is a very nodule-type grained material, much like those little round pieces that Styrofoam is made of... Now throw into that the knowledge that plaster is VERY chalk like & completely water soluable... I used to work for a company that made large statue type things made of plaster, & people would often try to keep them outside. Not only was any small moisture leached out of them over just a little time, but they were totally deteriorated out in the rain. Consider that the THICK layers of plaster enveloping each of the exterior columns---is over 25 years old, and then add that to almost all the columns being bare once they reached the ground.
I can only conclude that the "smoke" like emissions trailing thickly behind all the falling exterior panels, is only the decades-old plaster turning to powder as they fall. Not smoke.
Which is also what Judy is citing as the "dustification" of falling "steel"...when in fact it was almost certainly a "beam" shaped chunk of the outer layer of plaster from one of the exterior steel columns, that is simply turning to dust as it falls. Besides....if steel were REALLY being "dustified"---why is she only able to point out ONE "beam" doing so during the collapse, instead of many many steel beams also falling around it.....& why all the UNdustified steel beams lying in the rubble afterward. "Selective dustification ?? Um....no.
Again now, I remain heavily on the Truther side of the argument. But this is just not something I can look to as one of the items that supports that.
So whadda you guys think ??
February 16 at 4:37pm · Like · 1
Thomas Cooper So Kim Mantenga — big solid chunks of rotten plaster just turned to dust in mid air? Hard for me to picture. Anyway, the link that you provided shows in one diagram that the columns were bent inward, as they would have been if the planes were made of solid titanium, maybe. As I pointed out elsewhere, the exposed ends of the actual steel columns were bent outward (clearly visible in the photos) as though some explosive force from within the building cut the plane entry hole.
February 16 at 5:02pm · Like · 2
Kim Mantenga Dean, I think you are in denial that 90% of all exterior steel columns were 100% DEVOID of their thick outer layers of fire resistant plaster. And no, not "all the pieces" turned "to dust" as you say. Even JUDY only points to ONE of them in the video you just posted. But you are going to say "all" the pieces ? Come on ! So answer this : if the thick plaster enveloping each length of the exterior columns was NOT on them anymore when they reached the ground---was all that plaster somehow "invisible" as it disintegrated off of them as the steel columns fell ?? But you'd MUCH rather believe steel "dustification"----than PLASTER encasing all the beams creating the dust clouds on the way down. Okay.....
February 16 at 5:07pm · Edited · Like
Kerry Fritz II Kim Mantega - feel free to join me - I am in southern Sinai (@ Sharm El Sheik @ Oriental Ravoli - no children allowed hotel) now (after happenstance meeting with John Ward & Scotty Roberts, co-authors of Exodus Reality who were giving a tour of various parts of Egypt to others from the US, Scotland & England) of Hathor Temple in Serabit El Khadem staying at a Bedouin Camp. I am headed towards the Syrian Refugee Camps near [sic] Al Mafraq near the Syria-Israel-Jordanian border. I''ll eventually head back to Czech. Republic (Lititz PA birthplace was named by the founding Moravians/first Protestants after Litice Castle east of Prague about three hours drive) where I left my Russian-made '72 Zaz Lada 2101 that I got in Ukraine in June and parked in late Sept. to go to warmer climates. I have a lot of the full length versions of the various videos talked about here on a separate hard drive and filling-up my computer. Also notice that the beams were cut to the exact size to fit on a trailer. Also notice that the trucks to haul the stuff away were coming in while the day was still young. Directed energy weapons and/or Thermate will do the same. Watch the whole 2012 Energy conference footage of Dr. Judy Woods, eight minutes isn't enough to get the whole effect of her presentation. Again, it was a combination of weaponry, merely looking at one will not explain everything, while finding the 'official' report anomalies, lies, half-truths, etc. does not explain anything.
February 16 at 5:09pm · Edited · Like · 2
Kim Mantenga Aw heck no Kerry ! I in no way am trying to "defend the 'official' story". I just think the falling column sections trailing disintegrating plaster is not a valid part of the Truther theory. But God knows there is PLENTY else to support the Truther view. I just don't think the "smoke" (plaster) billowing behind all the falling exteriors belongs on our giant heap of Truther evidence.
February 16 at 6:13pm · Like
Kim Mantenga Dean Lingley Sr. : "That's another thing! Where did all the chunks of concrete you would expect to find go?" If the concrete floors were permeated with reinforcing steel, it is not likely there would be any large "chunks" as it broke away from all the rebar reinforcement as the towers came down. Even in the "pancake theory" (which I don't buy), surely the concrete within the reinforcing rebar would be quite crushed & broken up during its descent---whether by funky high tech pulverizing weaponry, OR pancaking (which again, I don't buy). Seems to me, anyway.
February 16 at 6:34pm · Edited · Like
Kerry Fritz II well Kim Mantenga, plaster, vermiculute, etc. is not that hard to break up into dust. It is the steel beams turning into dust that has me fuming about directed energy weaponry being used to fool the 'Patriots' without questioning the evidence of the 'event' being done by Muslim extremists. The Jewish-owned media is on a script made-up beforehand, and they keep harping on it instead of telling the people the truth about then, hiding real stories and questions, and not telling the truth about who is financing the subsequent domestic and foreign terrorism.
February 16 at 6:24pm · Like · 2
Kim Mantenga Preface to my answers : Do you guys see all the white rectangular things in the air surrounding the white plumes of dust ? (in the picture posted above) Notice in the videos of it, that these things appear to be very lightweight & all the same size & length, flipping & relatively "floating" downward. These are also what we see littering all nearby rooftops of post-collapse aerial shots, also attesting to their light weight, to have drifted so far from other debris that fell in a much more straight-down trajectory...
Kim Mantenga Part 1 : I feel certain those rectangular same-length lightweight white things, most likely plastic, are the inner office coverings of the exterior vertical columns. If you look in the (suspiciously FEW) pictures you can find in a google image search of interior offices that show the windows, you can see that these column coverings are only about 3" deep & MUST be the ONLY thing between interior office workers----& the exterior steel columns themselves. I would bet money they pop right off---& snap right back on, so that periodically they can be removed to inspect all the connecting bolts at the adjoining ends of the 3-column panels where they connect to each other. I did the math, & there are approximately 5,440 places where there are connecting 3-column-to-column connections through both towers combined. I know this sounds like a lot of potential access points to pop off these inner single-floor-length plastic panels....but if you divide 5,440 by 365 days (in a year), that works out to ONLY about 15 of these 3-column connects, if you have only ONE crew doing this---a night . Office hours were NOT 24/7 in the towers. They were basically the typical 9-to-5. Leaving all "off" hours (after cleaning crews have come & gone) to have SEVERAL "maintenance" dressed crews (who would think a thing about maintenance men going in to do maintenance ?) go in, pop off these little interior covers on the insides of the exterior columns in the night time hours, where ever these connections were---and where the access openings to the connecting bolts are---and plant thermite, or some OTHER type explosive type materials of some kind or whatever, down into the access holes in the panels... Whatever explosive type materials they might plant / apply to explode (or whatever---to assist in the planned "collapse"), would of course be pre-made & carried in with them. Pop those bad boy little plastic covers back on----& no one would be the wiser ! Several different crews could easily do this in just a handful of months. But what about the skeleton crew security guards the towers would employ for off hours you ask ?? "Oh, um....yes, we contracted with a new security company" would be the answer for any RARE & unlikely chance that anyone would actually bother to ask why they have all new security guys... Of course, they would in reality be govt agents running interference by walkie-talkie with the "maintenance crews" in the odd chance someone comes to the front desk & signs in to do any off-hours work.
Kim Mantenga Part 2 : WHO NEEDS EXPLOSIVES in the exterior steel columns ?? Take the "Part 1" portion of my answer....& subtract most of the explosives. Instead, remove 3 of the 4 connecting bolts between approximately 80% or so of all the panels. Take ALL of them out of SOME of the remaining 20%, and leave ALL of them in the rest. Anyone notice how the end flanges of almost ALL of the post-collapse exterior columns have completely EMPTY bolt holes, while a few have only ONE bent one sticking out ? TRUE, if all the connecting bolts were SHEARED in the collapse, then the broken ends would fall down into their respective enclosed "boxes" INSIDE the hollowed columns (leaving their bolt holes empty---which is why I asked earlier if anyone knew if the bolt holes in the flanges were threaded, because many or most sheared bolts in THAT case would have remained in the threaded holes). But did anyone CHECK TO SEE exactly how many of these enclosed "boxes" actually CONTAINED sheared bolts, or stripped nuts ?? Of course not. And it's too late to check that now. (To those of you that might ask "how they could do that without the towers falling apart before the scheduled "terrorist attack" ?" : That's why "they" would have to do careful calculations beforehand as to just how many of the bolts they could remove ahead of time to prevent premature collapse. You would also have to take into consideration how much all the other bolted connections, both in all the spandrels connecting everything, but in interior connections as well, would serve to hold everything together "well enough" until the appointed day of the event.
Kim Mantenga I truly (so far) see no need for explosives (at least as far as the outer columns goes---although there were still clearly SOME, as evidenced by exterior squibs, but absolutely CERTAINLY some on the core columns), or any "death ray" DEW stuff, or holograms, or any of that other stuff---to make for an ENTIRELY "do-able" govt conspiracy to bring the towers down. Nothing needed but the carefully calculated removal of strategic exterior column connecting bolts, a FEW well-placed explosive charges to the exterior (as witnessed & videotaped), some placed on interior core columns, and a couple of military drones crashing into the buildings to blame the collapse on.
Dan, I know my first try of lowering long strings of explosives down the full length of the exterior columns crashed & burned....& maybe these will too. LOL But I hope you like my efforts anyway. Lemme know if any of this sounds good or possible to you....
9 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Kim Mantenga Btw, do a google image search for "interior world trade center offices" or any variation thereof... I find it AMAZINGLY SUSPICIOUS that out of 30+ YEARS and many many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of office workers in all those years----that you can actually find ONLY about 5 or 10 images showing even HALF-WAY decent pictures of the inner covers to the exterior columns inside the offices. At least of the most COMMON floors where the outer columns were all about 3 feet apart.
Steve Grage There's no evidence of thermite as there is no light or heat. It appears the steel structure is dissolving like Alka Selzer into dust. Some of the dust is so fine, smaller than DNA, that molecular dissociation involved. The dust has organic matter in it so no heat. The dust cloud was not hot.
Kim Mantenga Norma Rae, you can see the "rectangular same-length lightweight white things, most likely plastic, are the inner office coverings of the exterior vertical columns" in the outer edges of the dust cloud in the Dan Bland picture at the top of this post itself, as well as from the inside between the windows, in the fist pic I posted in my comments. But I will re-add it here for you.
Kim Mantenga No, if you look at the aluminum cladding on the outside of the exterior columns, it had a 3-D center ridge running down them. The inner covers do not. Also, there is no reason for 3-story length sections of outer aluminum cladding to be manufactured & applied all in a bunch of short lengths like this. It is much more efficient & smart that they would be made in longer lengths. No reasonable reason whatsoever to make the aluminum cladding in short lengths for outer application.
Steel Alum Strength
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200867905100131&set=p.10200867905100131&type=1&theater
Kim Mantenga Norma Rae, I didn't say the plaster around the exterior columns accounted for ALL the dust seen in the collapse, nor the manner (volcanic eruption or other) in which it "spewed". I only said it must have been a significant contributor to the dust cloud created when they came down.
17 hours ago · Like
Kim Mantenga And even if "some other force" created the collapse (which I am still not committed on either way), it still doesn't diminish the significant CONTRIBUTION all that plaster from around the exterior columns would undeniably produce----and (again) almost ALL the exterior column sections were almost (if not entirely) completely NEKID of plaster by the time they reached the ground. It all went SOMEWHERE from before the towers collapsed---and BEFORE the exterior column sections met the ground. SOOOO very, very simple : 1.5" thick decades-old plaster completely enveloping every outer column, then 90-95% of those columns landing nekid steel on the ground = BIG contributor to dust cloud.
17 hours ago · Like
Atahan Ganduu Dew is a very wide classification of weaponry. Neutron theory is a psy op because there was no high heat at the wtc
14 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Philip Joy Oh, Atahan Ganduu I agree whole-heartedly, but Maxwell has written extensively on this and I want to give him a fair hearing. I am a Judy Wood thinker, but maybe I'm wrong. I can handle that!
Atahan Ganduu No problem PJ. If you find evidence of high heat at the wtc could you send it my way. So far I have no high heat at the wtc.
13 hours ago · Like · 1
Philip Joy Kim Mantenga, Maxwell Bridges what actually 'is' is important, in my opinion, because we often make assumptions about 'what' happened and then move on to 'how'. Like the BUsh Administration announcing within (was it) 48 hrs it was the work of Osama bin Laden. I mean, we know a disaster happened, and it was clearly deeply criminal, but that was the quickest jump to conclusions ever made in American history. Even Stalin took longer to believe Poland was really being invaded by Hitler. A measured response would not have put out an official story 'explaining' the destructions and the Pentagon and Nashville and a measured response would have said, we will find those who did it and will respond at a tme and a place of our own choosing. And besides a few people would have been sacked, like the secretary of state, homeland security, the chief of NORAD and of the FAA. But no, there was a rush to say who did it before WHAT had happened had been decided, HOW it happened, WHO did it and WHY.
13 hours ago · Like · 1
Kerry Fritz II No JoJoe Haleyscomet - Dr. JW did not say 'all' - most likely the lower floors were not 'dustified' (for reasons only the perpetrators now know and we have to figure out why. Example - Dir. En. Weapons may not have been able to reach that far down from where they were 'shooting' from (i.e. - only could be 'directed' at certain range of the tower(s).
6 hours ago · Edited · Like
Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges People were standing against the steel columns, there was no heat on the columns.
Norma Rae's photo.
6 hours ago · Like
Norma Rae NO HEAT on the columns.
Norma Rae's photo.
6 hours ago · Like
Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges Surely, you've heard of Hutchinson's Effect that bends steel.
Norma Rae's photo.
6 hours ago · Like
Steve Grage Thermite is a ruse. Here's some info:
http://planet.infowars.com/science/911-nano-thermite-debunked
Kim Mantenga 10:26pm Feb 17
No, if you look at the aluminum cladding on the outside of the exterior columns, it had a 3-D center ridge running down them. The inner covers do not. Also, there is no reason for 3-story length sections of outer aluminum cladding to be manufactured & applied all in a bunch of short lengths like this. It is much more efficient & smart that they would be made in longer lengths. No reasonable reason whatsoever to make the aluminum cladding in short lengths for outer application.
Justin Larmore 11:02pm Feb 17
That;s the story but there is a huge lack of evidence to support it. You look at the images from noon on 9/11 and the debris were not there. Did they ship it all out by noon on 9/11? Or is it more likely that the china story is to cover up the fact that there was a huge lack of debris supported by the evidence.
Atahan Ganduu 8:52am Feb 18
There was a low energy nuclear reaction at wtc
Atahan Ganduu 8:53am Feb 18
Not an atomic bomb, there was no high heat there
Justin Larmore 12:58pm Feb 18
Ah molten metal.. another myth that continues on.
Gordon Hoxtell 12:30pm Feb 18
Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
x143 Maxwell C. Bridges : accordion-ed in on itself
2014-02-19
High school physics teacher, David Chandler, calculated that the top part of the tower (let's say 30 stories for the sake of discussion) fell into the lower portion of the tower at 2/3 gravitational acceleration. Therefore, 2/3 of the "strength" of the supporting structure within that top portion was suddenly "weakened" to allow this anomaly.
Furthermore, before the bottom of that supposed "pile-driver" progresses more than 10 or 20 floors below the level where the "collapse initiated" (e.g., where planes hit), that upper portion has accordion-ed in on itself. Blows a big hole in the "pile-driver" theory, in part because what was the "pile-driver" on-top of the 30 story "pile-driver" that got the alleged "pile-driver" to become an accordion?
Of course, I say, shaped nuclear charges aimed upwards (neutron nuclear DEW) decimated the innerds.
//
x144 Maxwell C. Bridges : start a new thread
2014-02-19
Dear Mr. Philip Joy,
You wrote: "do you have stuff like this tucked away in your head or are you copying and pasting?"
Both. Gordon Hoxtell does a lot of copying-and-pasting. He posted the exact same thing under my thread, so I copied the response I had written for him.
You wrote: "Why don't you start a new thread, and explain in simple steps for the unitiated why Neutron Bombs were used because frankly I can't see the evidence."
I did do that already. Start at the top level and read the full posting. Then search for my comments in the discussion.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
You wrote: "I like things piecemeal, and I think most of us do too."
I can't help you there.
It is a cummulative argument. The tetris-style pieces of evidence can just as easily fit into other theory stacks as well as mine, except that mine (I believe) has the fewest gaps. One needs to see the whole of it, and the concerted efforts (including those of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood) to get nuclear considerations off of the table.
But were I to do as you suggest piecemeal-wise, the infestation of Woodsian supporters in this forum would one-by-one either say "that belongs in my theory" or brush them off (or more correctly, push them off and bury it under a flood of unrelated comments.)
You are welcome and encouraged to take my individual [*] points and address them in a piece-wise fashion... under my thread.
Or better yet, under my blog. (If you don't want to be pushed into using a Gmail or Facebook account to make the comment, use anonymous but do something within your comment that can differentiate your "anonymous" from others.) Blogger is a better place to have a discussion than Facebook, which tends to shove things around and allows flooding to push things out of view.
P.S. Speaking of Facebook badness, when I'm logged on from home, discussions in this group brings my computer to its knees. I end up having to suspend (or kill) my FireFox browser to do other work.
//
x145 Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez : lack of high heat, cool temperature of the dust
2014-02-19
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Maxwell Bridges, Please see my post to Mauricio above, as thermal and kinetic energy weapons of any kind (e.g. nuclear bombs, explosives, etc.) are not consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 for an enormous number of reasons, such as the lack of ionizing radiation at ground zero, WTC1 'lathering up', WTC7 'lathering up', disappearance of most of WTC4, vertical cylindrical holes in surrounding WTC buildings, numerous survivors in WTC stairwells, mostly undamaged WTC shopping mall, spontaneous 'weird' fires around ground zero, 1400+ 'toasted' and warped cars up to half of a mile away, ground zero fuming for years without high heat, strange window breakage patterns around ground zero, shriveled WTC steel beams, strangely curved WTC steel beams, wavy WTC steel beams, vertical axis 'rolling up' of WTC steel beams, spontaneous rapid rusting of metals around ground zero, spontaneous rapid rusting of Bankers Trust steel beams, shriveling and warping of Bankers Trust metal beams, lack of high heat, cool temperature of the dust, unburned paper, unburned clothing, unburned pedestrians, objects fusing with unburned paper, glowing and molten materials, minimal seismic impact of the towers, spontaneous explosion of Scott air tanks, numerous similarities between 'The Hutchison Effect' and phenomena observed at ground zero, and much more.
Your opinion is not consistent with the empirical evidence from 9/11, so please take the time to study the evidence I have cited if you wish to have a more accurate understanding of what happened that day.
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Philip, there is no debate because the conclusion revealed by the large body of evidence from 9/11 is irrefutable and inescapable. The empirical evidence from 9/11 is overwhelmingly conclusive, because there is only one thing that can explain it all, and nothing else comes close. Only the general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW) can explain all of the empirical evidence from 9/11, and it does so completely and irrefutably. In other words, a general type of weapon known as a 'directed energy weapon' was used to transform the WTC buildings mostly to dust in midair on 9/11, and this conclusion is irrefutable because the large body of publicly available, easily verifiable, empirical evidence from 9/11 shows us this beyond any reasonable doubt. It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name specific weapon details, such as the location or serial number of the weapon, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a somewhat general one, because that is the only logical, irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make. Jetfuel, airliners, explosives of any kind, and all other types of destructive forces are not even remotely consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, but directed energy weapons are overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence.
As I mentioned before, this table briefly summarizes and compares the various explanations that attempt to address the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, taken from Dr. Judy Wood's presentation at the 2012 'Breakthrough Energy Movement' conference in Holland.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=516718861726078&set=a.108769095854392.12444.108768449187790&type=1&permPage=1
Source: http://drjudywood.com/ & http://vimeo.com/57923364
Sincerely,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, M.D.
PGY1 Neurological Surgery
B.S. Biology/Neurobiology
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Again, there is no debate, but feel free to keep pretending there is. There are those whose opinions are consistent with the evidence from 9/11, and those whose opinions are not. Feel free to address the evidence I mentioned above if you ever have time, because so far you just keep sharing your unscientific opinions instead of addressing the evidence. If you continue to ignore the evidence I have cited, important evidence which directly contradicts your opinion then I will simpmly continue bringing you back to the evidence you are ignoring. -Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Philip Joy, I am not sure how much effort you have put into studying what happened on 9/11, but you really should keep researching because you continue to demonstrate misunderstandings with regards to the large and conclusive body of evidence from 9/11. I have pasted an explanation below that I typed up a while ago which will help clarify why there is no belief necessary to KNOW what happened on 9/11.
Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 "research", including the unscientific '9/11 Commission Report'. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.
Please consider the following simplified example as it helps to crudely illustrate this principle. Let's pretend my attorney provided you with the following verified and certified factual evidence: I own a common household pet, that's a mammal, has four legs, has sharp teeth, eats meat, has lots of hair, barks very loudly, drools when I place food in front of him, wags his tail when excited, eats from under the table, often chases cats, can be trained to do many tricks including 'sit', 'stay', and 'roll over', can play "fetch", has a strong sense of smell, is often used by law enforcement to fight crime, is often used for hunting, is closely related to wolves, and is known as "man's best friend". Based on this factual information, you can irrefutably conclude that I own a dog, because there is no other possible explanation to account for all of the verifiable facts that are available to describe my pet. You don't need theory or speculation, rather, you simply need to study all of the factual evidence that's available to describe my pet in order to be absolutely certain that it's a dog. By studying all of the available factual evidence in this exercise, you can irrefutably know that I own a general category of animal known as a dog, because the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive. However, if you were to try and guess the specific breed or color of the dog I own, that would be theory or speculation, because the verifiable body of factual evidence only allows you to irrefutably conclude that I own a general category of animal known as a dog.
The empirical evidence from 9/11 is also overwhelmingly conclusive, because there is only one thing that can explain it all, and nothing else comes close. Only the general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW) can explain all of the empirical evidence from 9/11, and it does so completely and irrefutably. I hope this helps clarify the difference between theory versus a conclusive body of evidence, and why studying all of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is so important.
Sincerely,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, M.D.
PGY1 Neurological Surgery
B.S. Biology/Neurobiology
Atahan Ganduu What is the evidence for nukes at the wtc?
Brian Parent I don't see any! Where is the radiation?
Atahan Ganduu Here's tritium but nowhere near the radiation levels of a nuclear explosion.
x146 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ganduu Carousel #5: like a bot, what is the evidence
Mr. Atahan Ganduu wrote: "What is the evidence for nukes at the wtc?"
Mr. Ganduu is playing games. He asks that repeatedly -- like a bot -- and the promptly ignores the responses -- like a bot. We went through his carousel under my thread.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
Mr. Brian Parent wrote: "I don't see any! Where is the radiation?"
Again, go read fully my top-level posting as well as comments that I made underneath. Seek and ye shall find.
Mr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, we've met before when you posted braid-dead Woodsian postings on Truth & Shadows. I'll be composing a detailed response to your comments, many of them misguided on the theme of nuclear devices, particularly those that I promote: neutron nuclear DEW. Possibly at lunch time today I'll have the response. (My apologies for being too busy yesterday to play on facebook.)
Patience.
//
x147 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ganduu Carousel #6: you asked me a question. I answered it.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1422124598032520/
Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu ,
You write: "At what point were you convinced that mini nukes destroyed the building?"
I despise the phrase "mini nukes" because it is loaded with expectations as hyped by the media and misunderstood by the public.
Before I was a Jonesian thermitic follower and before I was Woodsian follower, I suspected on 9/11/2001 nuclear payloads from the shear massive amount of energy required to pulverize the towers and from the fact that the any terrorist -- foreign or domestic -- would have a huge logistics hurdle if it were anything other than nukes.
But then nobody was complaining about radiation. Dr. Jones came into the picture and duped me twice: once with his no-nukes paper and once with his nano-thermite work. However, I distrusted how the 9/11TM would constantly label Dr. Wood's work as "looney" and "disinformation" without specifics. And in the rare event they provided some details, it was low-hanging fruit and missed purposely whole swaths of information.
I figured I'd check out Dr. Wood's book for myself, seeing how not a single leader in the 9/11TM would touch it with a 10' pole. I was already familiar with her website, which to this day still displays messages from 2007 about being under construction. I was open-minded and believe much validity to the concepts of her website, but "validity" is different than "applicability."
I'll give the short version of my review of Dr. Wood's book. Only about a dozen niggly errors that she should have fixed before plopping them verbatim into her book. However, some of them have major consequences, like when she tries to attribute the police car (2345?) being torched at the bridge; it wasn't. It was towed there, and had she been more astute in her research she would have come across pictures of when it was actually on fire, and it wasn't at the bridge. Dr. Wood should have addressed criticism of her work in her book.
Dr. Wood took a step back in her book and proposes no theories. She just drops lots of innuendo (while opening minds) about concepts and potential technologies, but doesn't tie them together into a cohesive whole or come right out and say "this is what happened."
Other than promoting Hutchison more than she ought to have, a major flaw is her promoting without question or reservation the government's report on satellite thermal images. I believe this is disinformation, because lots of different sources validate the evidence that hot-spots burned for months. In fact, part of the official story tries to attribute it to 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Hot-spots were a major focus of Dr. Jones' nano-thermite hoax, because the reaction obtains oxygen from the steel and therefore could burn hot under the rubble. (Too bad you'd need obscenely massive quantities of it that were unspent from the original overkill purposes of pulverization.) From fire-fighters to tiny iron spheres in significant percentages in the dust of neighboring buildings, lots of coaberation of hot-spots burning for months. Therefore, Dr. Wood's efforts to claim there wasn't high heat in the hot-spots is out of step.
On top of this, Dr. Wood can't power her DEW with anything real-world operational. For many months, I tried to prop up nuclear reactors (regular or cold-fusion), but it wan't adding up to the evidence.
Because Dr. Jones never provided math on how his thermite (with any combination of chemical-based explosives or incendiaries) could account for the duration of hot-spots [and diesel fuel doesn't help], I knew he had errors in his work. So I revisited his paper on "no nukes." After all, when looking at everyone outside and inside the 9/11TM, the one person with the greatest influence to dissuade us from nuclear sources was BYU professor of nuclear physics, Dr. Steven Jones. Immediately I spot Dr. Jones logic error. [Nuclear weapons of type X & Y have radiation signatures A & B. Radiation signature D was measured, and not A & B. Therefore, it wasn't nuclear weapons of ~any~ type. No speculation was made into nuclear weapons of type Z that would produce D.] The more I dug into his paper, the more I saw how it was built on faulty reports that he accepts unchallenged and how he deliberately frames everything as very large.
Worse, it doesn't take much googling to find Wikipedia entries that discuss fission, fusion, and neutron as the three main types. No mention by Dr. Jones or Dr. Wood into neutron devices (type Z) or plausible variations thereof. Further googling into Star Wars projects brings up Excalibur. The public record on the internet provides sufficient hints as to what neutron devices would and could do. (I'm sure the classified record is a huge rabbit-hole.)
For all of the kudos that Woodsian followers bestow upon their hero in terms of academic credentials, she did a piss-poor research job into nuclear devices that neutron devices, much less plausible variants of neutron devices, aren't mentioned, particularly when they can be configured with a DEW element [not for destruction but to aim the highly energetic neutrons out of the way.]
When you take a sky-high view of the 9/11 Truth Movement, all its major factions and particularly those that many perceive to be disinformation vehicles, they avoid nuclear considerations like the plague. They brush it off as "looney" quickly without considering the evidence. And when they do peddle nukes (like Dimitri), he's stuck on deep, under-ground nukes that in so many ways doesn't address the totality of the evidence and avoids neutron devices.
Whether promoting or debunking nuclear mechanisms (other than neutron devices), there is a huge tendancy to frame the nukes (a) too large in explosive yield (b) emitting too much radiation. Neutron devices solve these problems. Radiation is short-lived and quickly dissipated. The fact is that ~NO~ reports have been made public that promptly, systematicly, or thoroughly measured radiation. What is public, measured things late and haphazardly, which then gets skewed further by Dr. Jones et al from within the 9/11 TM. In other words, nobody can prove "no radiation" with a report containing timely measurements that would rule out neutron devices.
And face it, planting a dozen neutron devices per tower would be Occam Razor easier than anything convoluted that Dr. Wood ~hints~ at in her work, as well as anything else involving more conventional CD.
And if we were to wonder why there are the government shills or duped useful idiots still very active with their cognitive infiltration into online discussions trying to argue "pile-drivers at gravitational acceleration" (Jeffrey Harr) or arguing for Dr. Wood in brain-dead, circus merry-go-round fashion (Atahan Ganduu, Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, Steve Grage, Matthew Naus, Kerry Fritz II),...
THE 9/11 NUCLEAR REVELATION IS WHY.
The literal fall-out from the 9/11 nuclear devices was good news in its radioactive mildness (and bad news for the enemies of the USA who can suspect this low-radiation weapon is in our arsenals and that the USA is crazy enough to use it on ourselves and DU on Muslims),...
The figurative fallout from the 9/11 nuclear devices is still to this day highly radioactive and toxic to the status quo, all in power in the Executive Branch and Congress, all government alphabet agencies, the banking system that pulls the strings, and mass media.
P.S. Mr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, I still owe you a detailed reply to all of your recent, lengthy postings.
//
Atahan Ganduu wrote: "At what point in this essay did you address what happened to the building? Or my question for that matter."
Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu,
With all due respect, go FUCK yourself while riding your disinfo carousel.
You asked me a question. I answered it. And my answer did not involve addressing your at-that-point unasked question "what happened to the building?"
Of course, you should already know what I think happened to the buildings. I've written it fresh many times, copied from my blog many times, and linked to my blog a whole shit-load of times. You are just too much of a government infiltrator to read. And instead re-pose questions that become stupider with each asking.
I have half a mind to have Ms. Norma Rae ban your sorry ass. Even though she's a Wood supporter, she and the other Woodsians would be better off without you "helping" defend/promote Dr. Wood, because of your stupid carousel games.
//
x148 Maxwell C. Bridges : Carousel #7: preconceived notions from the media on what "nukes" are
2014-02-19
Part 1/3
Dear Mr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez,
You know me as Señor El Once from Truth & Shadows. Forewarned is forearmed.
You wrote: "as thermal and kinetic energy weapons of any kind (e.g. nuclear bombs, explosives, etc.) are not consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 for an enormous number of reasons, such as the lack of ionizing radiation at ground zero, ..."
When you go to the public record to prove your alleged "lack of ionizing radiation at ground zero," you will come up short. Where's the published report? Missing in action.
The reports that are available did their measurements LATE and haphazardly. Neutron devices do not leave lingering levels of ionizing radiation. They'd dissipate in 24-48 hours.
Before I go on in tearing apart your posting, it should be noted that you are NOT describing neutron nuclear DEW devices. You're relying on preconceived notions from the media on what "nukes" are.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "WTC1 'lathering up', WTC7 'lathering up',..."
Most of the "lathering up" I attribute to wind currents made worse by Hurricane Erin off of the coast. I'm open to the suggestion that it could be more, but Dr. Wood's lingering innuendo doesn't convince me of anything.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "disappearance of most of WTC4, vertical cylindrical holes in surrounding WTC buildings,..."
One of the reasons that "9/11 went big" with multiple planes, multiple crime scenes, etc. was so that in the cover-up, they could play and conflate the evidence of one with that of another. Mr. Rodriguez makes the assumption that all WTC buildings were destroyed by the same mechanisms. I don't.
In fact, I leave the door open for the crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the main edifice of WTC-4 at a line with its North Wing to have been accomplished by "Dr. Wood's beams from space powered by Tesla energy or Hurricane Erin with cold-fusion Hutchison."
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "numerous survivors in WTC stairwells, mostly undamaged WTC shopping mall,..."
My neutron nuclear DEW devices were shaped nuclear charges that aimed the highly energetic neutrons upwards, and hence helped direct the energy of the tactical side-effects of heat and blast way. Going with this premise, we can surmise that not all of the devices reached their expected yield, resulting in nuclear fizzle and the infamous hot-spots that burned for months. Between these two factors, your examples can be explained.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "spontaneous 'weird' fires around ground zero, 1400+ 'toasted'..."
First of all, Dr. Wood has some disinformation (not a lot, but some), and among those was the unchallenged re-publishing of the satellite thermal imagery. I think at least the second image was faked.
Secondly, I went to September Clues forum with images from Dr. Wood for them to debunk them. Their claim to fame is that all imagery was tainted, which is why they didn't like Dr. Wood's book; they claimed she relied on tainted imagery. So I put them to the test. Before I was booted (because they were doing a shitty job and proving themselves blatant disinfo agents), I did manage to get a couple of images flagged as highly probable of being tainted.
Among those images were exactly those of weird fires, like the fireman stepping over a beam on fire. Another was the picture of firemen on the pile standing in water -- framed by a broken glass window. Dr. Wood said that that was the location of a hot-spot, and if it existed, the steam would have cooked them. UNLESS THE PICTURE WAS TAINTED, FAKED, PHOTOSHOPPED.
I don't put a lot of stock in the September Clues premise that ~ALL~ imagery was tainted. But then again, I don't throw out the fact that some imagery could have been manipulated.
Thirdly, much of the toasted cars (in the parking lot and along West Broadway) I can explain as side-effect EMP slipping out through window slits line-of-sight. Sure enough, Dr. Wood's collected evidence is great! She's on the right track in calling attention to the anomalies. But her premature ruling out of nuclear devices (no research or mention of neutron variants), is rather glaring.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "warped cars up to half of a mile away,..."
If you're referring to the cars at the bridge, this was disinformation from Dr. Wood. The cars were towed there. Had she done more research, she would have found images of, say, the police car (2345?) that showed it on fire and in a different location (at an intersection, not at a bridge.)
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "ground zero fuming for years without high heat,..."
The "without high heat" is subjective and relative. How hot do fizzling (failed) nuclear devices get? If they were fragmented by the decimation and tiny pieces of fizzling nuclear material, how hot would pieces get?
How does Dr. Wood explain the fuming? She doesn't. She just raises the question.
And all the while she's got lots of evidence of clean dirt being carted in, spread out, collected a few days later, and carted away: radiation hazmat procedures.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "strange window breakage patterns around ground zero, shriveled WTC steel beams, strangely curved WTC steel beams, wavy WTC steel beams, vertical axis 'rolling up' of WTC steel beams,..."
These tetris-evidence pieces fit equally well -- maybe even better with fewer gaps -- in the theory stack of neutron nuclear DEW devices. Once the lion's share of the fusion energy is thrown away by aiming the highly energetic neutrons upwards, what remains are tactical heat waves, blast waves, and EMP (contained mostly within the outer steel walls except window slits).
//
Part 2/3
Mr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez continued: "spontaneous rapid rusting of metals around ground zero, spontaneous rapid rusting of Bankers Trust steel beams,..."
I believe this is scientific misinformation from Dr. Wood. The cars in question had their paint and protective coatings burned off. The reason they have the coatings is to prevent rust. The vehicles were at sea level, fire-fighting efforts happened, rain storms happened.
Here's a time-lapse video that showed formation of rust on steel STORE INDOORS at room temperature. Even at Day 3, it's discoloration is noticed.
http://vimeo.com/70343177
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "shriveling and warping of Bankers Trust metal beams,..."
This, I admit, was rather curious. Doesn't fit entirely in my paradigm. (However, Dr. Wood doesn't explain it either.) Keep it on the table to be addressed.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "lack of high heat,..."
Proof of this, you lack. In fact, the steel doobies (rolled up wall assemblies) and the wall assemblies that fell to the ground with smoke, steam, dust just streaming off of them is contrary to that assumption.
With my premise, an intense but very brief TACTICAL heat wave was largely confined to within the towers wall assemblies.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "cool temperature of the dust, unburned paper, unburned clothing, unburned pedestrians, objects fusing with unburned paper,..."
This does not rule out tactical neutron devices, because their radius of destruction was limited. Levels not affected directly by such devices were affected by the collapse wave.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "glowing and molten materials, minimal seismic impact of the towers, spontaneous explosion of Scott air tanks,..."
Pieces of tetris-evidence that fit equally well in my neutron theory stack.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "numerous similarities between 'The Hutchison Effect' and phenomena observed at ground zero, and much more."
Yeah, well, as much as I want to believe 'The Hutchison Effect', it lacks substantiation and repeatability. The phenomena attributed to Hutchison could also be attributed to tactical neutron devices.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "Your opinion is not consistent with the empirical evidence from 9/11,..."
You don't know what my opinion is, because you haven't addressed anything from my posting here or my blog. Therefore, I can say that neutron nuclear DEW is consistent with the empirical evidence.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "... so please take the time to study the evidence I have cited if you wish to have a more accurate understanding of what happened that day."
Already done. I probably know it as well as you do. I stand on Dr. Wood's shoulders, because she doesn't take it the full 9 yards for a 1st down. In many ways, she fumbles and has been begging for someone to pick up the ball and run. This, I have done.
Therefore, you take the time to study my tetris-stack "if you wish to have a more accurate understanding of what happened that day."
//
Part 3/3
In another posting, Mr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez writes: "there is no debate because the conclusion revealed by the large body of evidence from 9/11 is irrefutable and inescapable. The empirical evidence from 9/11 is overwhelmingly conclusive, because there is only one thing that can explain it all, and nothing else comes close."
Wrong. The "only one thing that can explain it all" trips you up. Such a faulty assumption that the perpetrators would use only one mechanism of destruction for everything observed. You play right into the hands of disinformation, if you aren't spreading it yourself.
And by the way, what is that "one thing"? Spit it out concisely. You didn't get it from Dr. Wood, because she doesn't promote theories like that in her book. She doesn't connect the dots of the innuendo she drops.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "Only the general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW) can explain all of the empirical evidence from 9/11, and it does so completely and irrefutably."
Neutron nuclear DEW, I guess, fits into that category. However, the DEW portion isn't to destroy (like a lazer) but to throw-away.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "In other words, a general type of weapon known as a 'directed energy weapon' was used to transform the WTC buildings mostly to dust in midair on 9/11, and this conclusion is irrefutable because the large body of publicly available, easily verifiable, empirical evidence from 9/11 shows us this beyond any reasonable doubt."
I agree. And it was nuclear powered. A variation of the neutron bomb.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name specific weapon details, such as the location or serial number of the weapon, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude."
Not completely. Evidence of nuclear involvement is presents: tritium.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "This is why the term is left as a somewhat general one, because that is the only logical, irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make. Jetfuel, airliners, explosives of any kind, and all other types of destructive forces are not even remotely consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, but directed energy weapons are overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence."
I agree, and neutron nuclear DEW fits into this category. It can be powered real-world, while Dr. Wood's speculative hand-wavey notions can't.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "Again, there is no debate, but feel free to keep pretending there is. There are those whose opinions are consistent with the evidence from 9/11, and those whose opinions are not."
And there are those whose opinions are based on faulty information, misinformation, tainted imagery, and skew. Dr. Wood's work isn't perfect.
I had more choice quotes from Mr. Rodriquez that I have chosen to not address, because they are just him boasting. Clearly, he isn't familiar with the neutron angle.
Mr. Rodriguez continued: "This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 "research", including the unscientific '9/11 Commission Report'. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW)."
However, her book just drops the innuendo and doesn't connect things together.
Dr. Wood did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices, because if she would have, she would have known that neutron devices are ripe for unique configurations.
I applaud Dr. Wood for her collected images, but mistakes were make. Some purposeful.
P.S. Disinfo shill and carousel-cranker Mr. Atahan Ganduu wrote: "Here's tritium but nowhere near the radiation levels of a nuclear explosion."
Measurements taken late, haphazardly, and none from near hot-spots. They stopped taking measurements in fact when their readings at various drainage places were below EPA threshold levels for what constitutes a health risk. They juked the definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than expected.
//
x149 Maxwell C. Bridges : Research: Casaba-Howitzer
2014-02-20
+++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur
Project Excalibur was a United States government nuclear weapons research program to develop a nuclear pumped x-ray laser as a directed energy weapon for ballistic missile defence.[1] It became part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).[1] Conceived by nuclear scientist Edward Teller, the concept involved packing large numbers of expendable soft x-ray lasers around a nuclear device. When the device detonated, it would fire soft x-ray laser beams in many directions.[2] The goal was to aim these beams to shoot down enemy nuclear missiles near the end of, and after the missiles boost phase stage of flight. The kill mechanism of the X-ray laser was ablative laser propulsion shock;[3][2] that is, the x-rays would heat the surface of the missile, causing it to vaporize explosively, destroying it or knocking it off course.
...
the device consisted of a small nuclear device surrounded by multiple rods made of a material that served as an x-ray gain medium, releasing x-rays when "pumped" by incident photons.[2] Each rod would function as a separate x-ray laser. The x-ray laser would be optically pumped by the extremely high density of high energy photons that appear in the first nanoseconds of a nuclear detonation. The pumped medium would emit a pulse of coherent x-rays, in the direction of the long axis of the rod.[2] Unlike optical lasers, in which the light is reflected by mirrors at the ends and makes multiple passes through the gain medium, in the x-ray laser the x-ray pulse is generated in a single pass through the rod.[2] The calculations showed that the extremely high gain and high energy pulse from the lasers would occur before the detonation destroyed the lasers and the rest of the satellite. If large numbers of gain media rods were used, each pre-aligned to point at a missile, then a large number of missiles could be destroyed in one fell swoop.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pumped_laser
A nuclear pumped laser is a laser pumped with the energy of fission fragments. The lasing medium is enclosed in a tube lined with uranium-235 and subjected to high neutron flux in a nuclear reactor core. The fission fragments of the uranium create excited plasma with inverse population of energy levels, which then lases. Other methods, e.g. the He-Ar laser, can use the He(n,p)H reaction, the transmutation of helium-3 in a neutron flux, as the energy source, or employing the energy of the alpha particles.
Research in nuclear pumped lasers started in the early 1970s when researchers were unable to produce a laser with a wavelength shorter than 110 nm with the end goal of creating an x-ray laser. However, when laser wavelengths become that short the laser requires pump energy of large magnitude which must also be delivered in an increasingly short period of time. In 1975 it was estimated, by George Chapline and Lowell Wood from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, that "pumping a 10-keV (0.12-nm) laser would require around a watt per atom" in a pulse that was "10-15 s x the square of the wavelength in angstroms." As this problem was unsolvable with the materials at hand and a laser oscillator was not working, research moved to creating pumps that used excited plasma. Early attempts used more high-powered lasers to excite the plasma. Results using this method were unsatisfying, and fell short of the goal. Livermore scientists first suggested using a nuclear reaction as a power source in 1975. By 1980 Livermore considered both nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors as viable energy sources for an x-ray laser. On November 14, 1980 the first successful test of the bomb-powered x-ray laser was conducted. This idea was initially supported over that of the reactor driven laser because it delivered a more intense beam. By adopting such an angle, Livermore's research was almost entirely devoted to missile defense using x-ray lasers. The idea was to mount a system of nuclear bombs in space. These bombs would each power approximately 50 lasers. Upon detonation, these lasers would fire, theoretically destroying several dozen incoming nuclear missiles in one detonation. Opponents of this plan found many faults in such an approach and questioned many aspects, such as the power, range, accuracy, politics, and costs of such deployments. In 1985 a test titled ‘Goldstone' revealed the delivered power to be less than believed. Efforts to focus the laser also failed. Bomb driven x-ray laser research essentially came to an end when the principal researchers were accused of falsifying data, though the program continued until 1992.
Fusion lasers (reactor driven lasers) started testing after the bomb-driven lasers proved successful. While prohibitively expensive (estimated at 30,000 dollars per test), research was easier in that tests could be performed several times a day and the equipment could be reused. In 1984, a test achieved wavelengths of less than 21 nm the closest to an official x-ray laser yet. (There are many definitions for an x-ray laser, some of which require a wavelength of less than 10 nm). The Livermore method was to remove the outer electrons in heavy atoms to create a "neon-like" substance. When presented at an American Physical Society meeting, the success of the test was shared by an experiment from Princeton University which was better in size, cost, measured wavelength, and amplification than Livermore's test. Research has continued in the field of nuclear pumped lasers and it remains on the cutting edge of the field.[1][2]
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php
The nuclear device is encased in a radiation case of x-ray opaque material (uranium) with a hole in the top. This forces the x-rays to to exit only from the hole. Where they run full tilt into a large mass of beryllium oxide (channel filler). The beryllium transforms the nuclear fury of x-rays into a nuclear fury of heat. Perched on top of the beryllium is the propellant: a thick plate of tungsten. The blast of heat turns the tungsten plate into a star-core-hot spindle-shaped-plume of ionized tungsten plasma. The x-ray opaque material and the beryllium oxide also vaporize a few microseconds later, but that's OK, their job is done. The tungsten plasma jet hits square on the Orion drive pusher plate. With the reference design of nuclear pulse unit, the plume is confined to a cone of about 22.5 degrees. About 85% of the nuclear devices's energy is directed into the desired direction, which I think you'd agree is a vast improvement over 10%.
About this time the representatatives of the military (who were funding this project) noticed that if you could make the plume a little faster and with a narrower cone, it would no longer be a propulsion system component. It would be a directed energy weapon. Thus was born project Casaba-Howitzer.
Details are scarce since the project is still classified after all these years. Tungsten has an atomic number (Z) of 74. When the tungsten plate is vaporized, the resulting plasma jet has a relatively low velocity and diverges at a wide angle (22.5 degrees). Now, if you replace the tungsten with a material with a low Z, the plasma jet will instead have a high velocity at a narrow angle. The jet angle also grows narrower as the thickness of the plate is reduced. This is undesirable for a propulsion system component, but just perfect for a weapon.
Scott Lowther has done some research into a 1960's design for an Orion-drive battleship. It was to be armed with naval gun turrets, minuteman missiles with city-killing 20 megatons warheads, and Casaba-Howitzer. It appears that the Casaba-Howitzer charges would be from subkiloton to several kilotons in yield, be launched on pancake booster rockets until they were far enough from the battleship to prevent damage (several hundred yards), whereupon they would explode and skewer the hapless target with a spear of nuclear flame. Get a copy of the report for more details, including a reconstruction of a Casaba-Howizer charge.
What is the mass and volume of a Casaba-Howitzer charge? Apparently this also is still classified. An Orion Drive nuclear pulse unit would be about 1,150 kg, have a blast yield of about 29 kilotons, and be a cylinder with a radius of 0.4 meters and a height of 0.87 meters. The volume would therefore be about 0.4 cubic meters. As previously mentioned a Casaba-Howitzer charge would have a yield ranging from sub-kiloton to a few kilotons, so presumably it would be smaller and of lower mass than a pulse unit.
There are a few more crumbs of information in the report Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects. They note that harnessing the x-rays from a nuclear blast is not only good for making deadly jets of atomic fire, but can also be used to pump x-ray lasers and energize EMP weapons. Not to mention accelerating projectiles to very high velocities by means of x-ray ablation, or by means of neutrons from the nuclear explosion (see report for cites on this).
So the report points out that the x-rays and neutrons can be used to drive or self-forge several projectiles or fragments (a "nuclear gun" or "nuclear grenade"). X-rays and neutrons can also be used to heat a working fluid and form hot jets (the above-described "nuclear shaped charge").
http://www.scifiideas.com/science-2/scifi-weapons-missiles-nukes/
Project Casaba-Howitzer was a byproduct of Project Orion, a spacecraft design from the 1950's that would use nuclear bombs to propel a very large, very sturdy craft. ... [T]he Orion guys knew all about the spherical waste of a normal nuclear detonation, so they came up with a design that would direct the blast toward the pusher plate in a form resembling a cone with an area of about 22.5 degrees. In doing this, the bomb directed approximately 85 percent of its energy towards the plate instead of the 10 percent one would get from an ordinary spherical detonation.
Of course, the military people funding Orion noticed that if you tightened up that cone a bit, and made the nuclear blast come out just a little faster, you no longer have a propulsion component—you have a directed energy weapon. This is Project Casaba-Howitzer: a shaped nuclear charge that remains classified to this day.
So going back to our Nukes in Space calculator, lets Casaba-Howitzer our 100 kiloton missile. For weapon shape I'm going to tighten down the area to 2. I don't change anything else: 100 kiloton bomb, aluminum armor—press the fire button and let's rock and roll.
Now we're getting impulse shock from a detonation range of 500 meters, and at a detonation range of 250 meters we're instantly vaporizing almost 115 millimeters of armor and punking this imaginary spacecraft badly. How far out can we detonate and get impulse shock? If we play with the range numbers we discover our Casaba-Howitzer device can detonate as far away as 825 meters (2,700 feet) and it will still do enough damage to your armor to get impulse shock.
Casaba: A hypervelocity particle NDEW concept developed in the 1960.
Howitzer: An X-Ray laser NDEW concept examined in the 1960's.
Putting it simply
"Casaba Howitzer" is a nuclear shaped charge, the warhead is encased in a Depleted Uranium shell with a hole at one end, the hole is filled with a channel filler which then interacts with a "propellant"
With this design ~90% of the nuclear initiation is directed at the target.
Casaba-Howitzer is a shaped-charge warhead designed to direct a spear of nuclear fire at an enemy vessel- in essence a one-shot raygun. Even though ordinary nukes don't work to well, shaped charge warheads and explosively formed penetrators could be used as deadly atomic torpedoes.
//
x150 Maxwell C. Bridges : Public Apology: no longer champion the premise of "Neutron Nuclear DEW."
2014-02-20
Upon further study OUTSIDE of this forum, it has become apparent that both Mr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez and I have areas where we were wrong (as well as areas where we are right.)
Before I get into those details, allow me to offer my public apologies for any misleading efforts on my part. I formally no longer champion the premise of "Neutron Nuclear DEW."
This being said, I still firmly believe that 9/11 involved nuclear devices, and this is the area where Mr. Rodriguez's (via Dr. Wood's) DEW theories need modification. "Nuclear-powered DEW" or other phrases, to be discussed below.
I have not been into Facebook since about 5:30 pm (MST) yesterday (2/19), so I do not even know the true extent of Mr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez's forum "contributions" and discussions with others, and therefore none of that extra effort has had a basis in me changing my views.
In the prolific participation prior to that time, though, Mr. Rodriguez did mention one thing that hit home and led me to further off-line research at lunch today. He was adament that the pulverization of the towers exhibited "lack of high heat, cool temperature of the dust, unburned paper."
In my former premise of the neutron nuclear DEW, highly-energetic neutrons were expelled DEW-fashion in order to get tactical levels for the heat and blast waves (and EMP). Whereas I thought that the heat wave would account for the "steel doobies," the vast amounts of tiny iron spheres in the dust, the arches, the horseshoe beams, etc., there is an aspect of how heat effects change with respect to distance. Something really close gets vaporized, but as items are located further away (but not too far), they are ignited, they are heated, they are warmed, etc. Even confined within the towers and at tactical levels, burning items would have been more prevelant. (Human remains found on the roofs of neighboring buildings weren't scorched or burned; they were blown apart.) Consider "IGNITION" hole in the foot of my premise.
This being said, my premise has nuggets of truth that need to be rescued and re-purposed.
- The USGS dust samples revealed many curious elements, like Uranium, that the cover-up never discussed, instead focusing on asbestos and other bad compenents in the mix contributing to bad health. Mr. Jeff Prager efforts determined that many of these curious elements not only were in correlated amounts indicating involvement in the destruction, but also were themselves part of the recipe for nuclear devices. Specifically, he found evidence of fission, which most likely would have been fission-triggered fusion.
- The tritium report did their sampling late (after some dissipation) and later still, haphazardly (not even near the hot-spots), and stopped further sample taking when their measurements came up below EPA thresholds for health risks. They re-defined trace/background levels to be 55 times greater than it was previously. Although valid for its limited scope, the tritium report can not be used as the final word on actual tritium levels at the WTC.
- No report on radiation has ever been made public that shows timely, systematic, and thorough measuring for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, let alone that the measurements were at or below trace background levels. The one report that does exist (Paul Lioy et al) measured for radiation late (~4 days) and from only three samples, all East of the complex. The report did not give actual numbers for what was measured or for what trace levels were supposed to be, so (as happened with the tritium report) we don't know if any juking of definitions was part of the cover-up.
- Dr. Steven Jones used the above two radiation reports unchallenged, maintained whatever bent they had, and misdirected us further by framing nuclear devices in a dubious manner (only large devices of two types.) No speculation was made into other variants that would account for tritium, such as neutron devices or anything else. Moreover, his nano-thermite efforts to fill the void have many issues making it incapable of addressing all the evidence.
In making my neutron nuclear DEW arguments, I had been inspired by Project Excalibur, a United States government nuclear weapons research program to develop a nuclear pumped x-ray laser as a directed energy weapon for ballistic missile defence.
Today, when I was doing my research, I hit upon nuclear pumped lasers, and then Project Orion and finally Casaba-Howitzer. Although Casaba-Howitzer was conceived of in the 1960's, it is still classified today.
PAYDIRT comes from a 2005 PDF file on "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects."
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
Although authored in 2005, concepts were validated in the years preceeding. I highly recommend that people read it. Although it talks about Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons, it relies on advanced concepts from Third Generation Nuclear Weapons, which would have been tested and available in 2001.
++++ being quote
In particular, we will specialize to explosive devices in which the main source of militarily useful energy (i.e., yield) is the deuterium-tritium (DT) fusion reaction. As will be seen, when used as the dominant process in a nuclear weapon, this reaction leads to very different military effects than those of first and second generation nuclear weapons (i.e., "A" and "H" bombs), where in fact the dominant source of yield is fission, and where fusion plays only a secondary role in enhancing the fissioning of large amounts a fissionable materials.
First generation: 6 kg P u => 10 kt yield at 10% efficiency
Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
...
Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
- ETC —
...
[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
++++ end quote
In conclusion, the empirical evidence from 9/11 [tritium], as well as the cover-up antics as exhibited by the reports and their omissions [delays and jukes in radiation measurement], strongly indicate that nuclear powered DEW devices were involved with some or all of the WTC destruction. However, when Dr. Wood presents concepts from DEW, she is closer to the true causes than others.
Think of this analogy. A microwave oven causes the water molecules in food to vibrate, their vibration causes heat, which eventually heats the food. Containers, like the cardboard boxes for Chinese food, typically have little water, so only get hot due to the food in them getting hot.
Much of the WTC destruction would be similar to intense microwaves not just heating water molecules in content, but instantly heating them so that they change state into steam, whose expanding outward pressure would literally blow apart content, from drywall, to concrete, to humans. The wall assemblies that fell to the ground streaming off steam, dust, etc. is an indication a DEW weapon getting right into the core of material.
Whereas I am now seemingly supporting certain concepts from Dr. Wood, I am not yet a champion of LENR, Cold Fusion, or the Hutchison Effects, until further research proves their applicability. As this point even in changing my position, I find them distractions and even disinfo.
I apologize publicly once again for having misled others with my "neutron nuclear DEW" premise.
//
x151 Maxwell C. Bridges : 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
2014-02-21
Late 3rd Generation Nuclear Weapons.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
++++ quote
Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
...
Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
- ETC —
...
[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
++++ end quote
When Dr. Wood deliberately fails to speculate rationally into all available energy sources, and particularly energy sources whose lingering evidence was found and/or covered for in shoddy reports, then this becomes an area where Dr. Wood's theories comes up short. All the more so when LENR and cold fusion (Tesla energy, hurricane energy) have neither the documented history of successful experimentation nor real-world, operational examples to point to as being viable.
//
x152 Maxwell C. Bridges : merged and not beaten over the head
2014-02-21
Dear Mr. Calvin Raven Eagle and Dr. Tracy Lowtemp Blevins,
Concepts of energy beams and nukes should be merged together, and not used to beat the other one over the head.
Nuclear means were used to power the DEW that "aerolsolized" the contents. Evidence of nuclear means is in the dust and the blatant stilting and omissions in government reports.
Nuclear means have many ways that they can be tweaked in their yields, particularly when one isn't aiming for a high blast yield. Late-3rd Generation and Early-Adopter-4th Generation weapons are right down this alley.
The vehicle damage in the car park and along West Broadway (and the pictured firetruck) are still hard for me to associate with the DEW beams that their numbers on the towers content. But if the multiple DEW devices were nuclear powered, an EMP would be an expected side-effect. Except that it would be largely contained within the steel wall assemblies of the tower and whatever else was constructed for this purpose (anomalous construction on empty floors was reports.) Except for what EMP could have slipped out line of site through window slits and falling debris.
This being said, the towers destruction wasn't a perfect operation. The shriveled beam in the Banker's Trust building is an indication of possibly a beam that got misaligned. (I could be convinced that some of the vehicle damage met this fate, too, but I'm still stuck on EMP at the moment for other reasons.) The spire was another failure. The under-rubble hot-spots is the most glaring failure, indicating nuclear fizzle from devices not meeting their expected yield.
P.S. I'm not a fan of the deep under-ground nukes as promoted by the Russian agent, because other than the glassy crater way under WTC-4, Dr. Wood provides many examples from under the towers that disproves that: the bathtub, the rail lines, the mall, ...
//
x153 Maxwell C. Bridges : Facebook etiquette
2014-02-21
Facebook etiquette. When you're joking with your friends, one- or two-liners are fun. Putting several in a row is fun, particularly if they are funny.
When discussing a serious topic -- like on this 9/11 forum --, two or more postings in a row not predicated by comment length limitations within a short time frame takes on vastly different negative traits.
The best way to compose your well thought-out comments is to take your time OFF-LIST (in Notepad or Word). [Rule of thumb is that about just over 60 short paragraphs is the Facebook comment length limit. Comments longer than that need to be broken into multiple comments.] When you write OFF-LIST, you can save off-list and have the material available to re-purpose later, which is an important personal benefit to all writers who stand behind their words.
Of course, many responses merit only two or three paragraphs. If you forget to SHIFT-ENTER, press ENTER pre-maturely, end up publishing your comment after one paragraph, yet still have more to say, do everyone a favor and post-edit that first comment to include your additional thoughts. Don't carry on with a new comment.
Why?
Each comment generates an email to those who have LIKED or posted an adjacent comment under the thread [if they have notifications turned on.] Therefore, short comments in a row actually does generate lots of email. They can literally SPAM interested readers' inboxes. When read on a mobile device, active FB discussions can be overwhelming.
Facebook does something that I call "compression". After publication, lengthy comments get compressed and show only the first 4 or so lines, while the rest of the comment sits under the "see more" link. Similarly, the top-level view of a group compresses the comments under each posting into the last 4 or so comments. The rest of the comments are available under "view previous comments" links.
These two compression features are an aid to the readers, allowing them to follow the scent of the information and bore into "view previous comments" and "see more" on their own when of interest.
When shoot-from-the-hip short comments are posted several in a row, aside from the aforementioned SPAMMING effect to email, they tend to juke such compression views. They give unfair "display weight" to the words of the several in a row but of short length, in comparision to the longer comments that hide behind "see more" links. Several in a row are harder to skip over than one in a row. Worst of all, several in a row push in an unfriendly manner other participants' comments prematurely into the "view previous comments" realm.
Short comments sent fast and furious aren't always a good reflection on the participant. The reflection on the writer only gets murkier when the comments come two or more in a row in a short period of time. "What? Couldn't you wait to publish until you had all of your thoughts together?" The SPAMMING of email, the juking of "display weight", and the pushing of others comments into "view previous comments" -- when done repeatedly -- takes on the aura of a negative debate tactic, like an attempt to unfairly bury & hide the words of others.
A discussion group around 9/11 should be encouraging well thought-out, reasoned comments, and not Twitter-style twatter.
//
x154 Maxwell C. Bridges : "cognitive infiltration" married "artificial intelligence" and created some bots
2014-02-21
Hey 9/11 Truthers,
Remember how Cass Sunstein was talking about cognitive infiltrating all online discussions? Remember how control of the media and information is a strategic military objection? Remember how artificial intelligence was a big buzz word several years ago?
Well guess what?
"Cognitive infiltration" married "artificial intelligence" and created some bots. Our forum is blessed with one of those bots -- a brain-dead Dr. Judy Wood supporter going by the handle "Atahan Ganduu."
The background here is that I ~never~ championed "neutron bombs." Until a major, top-level posting yesterday, I championed "neutron nuclear DEW", which was a distinct variant of that, a distinction that should have been made clear to Mr. Ganduu in our discussions these past weeks, were he not a bot.
When Mr. Ganduu brought it up again today and after I correct the record, evidently his bot algorithms that have developed a profile for me are not used to 180 degree shifts.
Check this out and note the timestamp ~AND~ that I told the bot at least three times of the change.
Atahan Ganduu Neutron bombs characteristics don't apply to the Hutchison effect.
4 hours ago ·
Atahan Ganduu Let me know if you ever make the connection between what happened at the wtc and mini neutron bombs
43 minutes ago ·
Atahan Ganduu Ask Maxwell Bridges Matt
38 minutes ago ·
Atahan Ganduu He's decided that mini neutron bombs did something
36 minutes ago · Edited ·
Atahan Ganduu What is the connection between neutron nuclear bombs and what happened to the wtc?
9 minutes ago · Edited ·
Atahan Ganduu If you ever make the connection between thermitic nuclear neutron bombs and what happened at the wtc will you let us know?
4 minutes ago ·
Atahan Ganduu How does nuclear neutron bombs sink in with what happened to the wtc?
2 minutes ago ·
++++
I always knew when I was on the other side of the fence there was a reason why he debated so badly, didn't read my posts, ignored my responses, etc.
He's a bot. The evidence is clear.
Pretty clever.
//
x155 Maxwell C. Bridges : what is going to keep the radiation contained?
2014-02-22
Dr. Blevins writes: "If it was nuclear bombs, what, exactly, is going to keep the radiation contained?"
Starts off with the design of the device. Things based off of a neutron device (and fusion) do not give off radiation that is lingering. 24-48 hours and it is safe for humans. ["Based of a neutron device" gives room for variants, whereby wavelengths of energy could be filtered and directed.]
Second, secure access to the site and don't allow errant cameras or Geiger Counters to roam the complex.
Third, don't measuring anything for three or more days. The number of samples taken does not have to equal the subset documented in reports. The reports themselves can pick which samples it wants to include. If there was a report that promptly (under 24 hrs), systematically, and thoroughly measure for radiation, it was never made public. The Paul Lioy report only used three samples all East of the towers, and were collected on 9/16 and 9/17. The report doesn't give the actual measurements for the samples or what was trace/background. [The report on tritium in its wording effectively re-defined trace/background to be 55 times greater than it was previously.]
The details of the samples leaves plenty of room for early-adopter 4th generation nuclear devices to be "missed" in their delayed, haphazzard, and scope-limited reports.
Dr. Blevins writes: "Myself as an example. I inhaled the WTC fumes each and every day for many months. All of that material got into my lungs. I'm not the only one. If that material had been radioactive, you can guarantee that I'd have cancer of the lungs, or a significant proportion of the residents and visitors to lower Manhattan would also have cancer, but we don't."
The nature of the 4th gen nuclear devices assured non-lingering and quickly dissipating radioactivity.
Dr. Blevins writes: "Yes, the rescue workers and clean up crew have lung problems, but they don't really have that big of an increase in cancers... If it had been radiation, it would have been cancer."
Compared to the rest of the population, those people did have a big increase in cancers. Certainly those working on the pile within the first 48 hours would have had increased exposures to the dissipating radiation.
Dr. Blevins writes: "What they have is scarring of the lung tissue. They breathed in something that scarred their lungs but did not give them cancer. ... The other side of my research has discovered that what these people (and myself) was inhaling was sharp edged iron particles, not that easy for the lungs to expell, and which causes scarring if too much of it hangs around. It's called "siderosis" and it's similar to "asbestosis" but caused by iron."
No argument here that this is what would plague most of the people.
Mr. Calvin Raven Eagle wrote: "3 MICRO NUKES.... The BLASTS INCINERATED over 1600 MOTOR VEHICLES within ONE MILE RADIUS, registered 2.3 on the RICHTER SCALE over 300 miles away and left PUDDLES of MOLTEN STEEL @ 1600-2800 DEGREES over 8 weeks later..."
Here's a couple things I've learned about disinformation. First, it is based on a solid foundation of truth before the skew is set. Second, they are designed to be discredited, because in doing so, valid nuggets of truth will be buried as well: a disinfo goal. Thus, we often see defenders of certain premises doing a very poor job of it on purpose towards the disinformation goal of others not giving it any more consideration.
So it is with Mr. Calvin Raven Eagle. The energy of micro-nukes exceeds that which was observed. The alleged blasts incinerating vehicles did not get flags, leaves, trees, or people, therefore couldn't be that which did it. The towers destruction began near their tops and progressed down, which gives pause to his belief that there were only 3 and left puddles of molten metal 8 weeks later. [Impossible unless devices fizzled. Otherwise they light up once and cool off.]
In summary, Mr. Eagles nuclear premise doesn't match the observed evidence, and is being promoted in a dubious manner to get nuclear considerations taken off of the table.
I believe that Mr. Ganduu defends Dr. Wood poorly on purpose, so get it taken off the table pre-maturely as well.
//
x156 Maxwell C. Bridges : late-3rd and early-adopter-4th generation nuclear weapons
"Neutron Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) and the demise of the WTC" is the subject of this thread, as commanded by Mr. Philip Joy and egged-on by Mr. Atahan Ganduu.
Disclaimer: My views have been perverted from earlier descriptions of the nuclear device that I promoted on my blog [which has not been fixed yet] and here. The true theme of this posting will be Late-3rd Generation and Early-Adopter-4th Generation Nuclear Weapons.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
My wild-ass, bat-shit crazy ~speculation~ into this theme begins with the fact that nuclear devices can make trade-off's during the design with regards to the expected yields and side-effects. Low-radiation or "reduced radiological impact" weapons have been a goal of weapons design for decades.
As an example of design trade-offs, neutron devices -- based on (fission-triggered) fusion devices -- expell the highly-energetic neutrons instead of containing them. Neutron radiation is very dangerous to life forms but is not lingering. When aimed in DEW fashion, collateral damage to life forms is more predictable. When aimed at certain materials, they become radioactive but it dissipates in 24-48 hours. [This highlights a purposeful fault in all government-sponsored reports on WTC radiation: delays in taking samples and/or narrow sample pools.] Also, the neutrons can be aimed away from tandem neutron devices, reducing the likelihood of fratricide.
Moreover, controlling the amount of escaping highly-energetic neutrons helps literally dial in other nuclear detonation side-effects like heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Nuclear weapons of tactical low-yields are hard to achieve, but become easier when assumptions of "efficient usage of the nuclear energy" are discarded; energy is purposely wasted and "thrown-away usefully and purposely" by allowing the highly-energetic neutrons to escape.
Here are two data points. The Hutchison effect involves extremely-high frequency waves at resonant harmonics whose wavelengths are comparable to the distances betwen molecules and atoms of materials. Casaba-Howitzer and Project Excalibur were some of the origins to channeling selected wavelengths (e.g., x-rays) from the spectrum of nuclear emissions.
Wild-ass, bat-shit crazy extrapolation from those two data points would be a neutron device that would channel, say, x-ray frequencies of the nuclear detonation in a narrow cone ~upwards~ and missing the spire. Additional trade-off's in design could further sacrifice portions of the heat and blast wave yields.
The cone of x-ray (or other realm in spectrum) frequencies at resonant harmonics with its targets' components would achieve material dissassociation in the target. "Aersolization" of materials, like iron.
Another effect of this could DEW related energy infusion -- like a microwave -- could be to turn water molecules trapped in materials instantly and directly into very hot steam, whose rapidly expanding volume-pressure blows apart the materials in question: concrete, drywall, humans, etc.
Supporters of Dr. Wood's theories ought to have little to quibble about with the above. However, at least one such supporter regularly, adamently states words to the effects that there were no fires and no high heat in the WTC towers' demises. Such an extreme position is a straw-man set-up for failure, as debunkers point to fire-balls at the impact locations at the initiation of demise.
At this point, I am not willing to give up the premise that such neutron detonations had a tactical but intense heat wave associated with it. Limited by the design and placement in the towers, it would have been masked by debris raining down from above. The "steel doobies," the arches, the horseshoes, and the iron spheres exhibited in dust samples could be attributed to this side-effect. Mutual exclusivity does ~not~ have to exist between traditional nuclear side-effects and what is attributed to Hutchison effects.
Some videos of the towers demise captures what looks like squib charges running ahead of the collapse wave. Again, my wild-ass, bat-shit crazy speculation into the matter is that this squib was the result of a conventional charge used to initiate the whole nuclear process. Maybe it was needed to inject the fissionable material together that then generates the high heats needed for the fusion process whose output yields are then manipulated. The output yields were directed upwards, which means they plows through existing structure above as well as then falling debris. Other pictures and videos exhibit what appears to be a fountain-effect regarding dustified content having an upward component to its trajectory vector before gravity turns it around and it falls to the ground.
If you look closely, the demise of both towers had remnants of a spire (one more short-lived than the other), which is a smoking gun that strongly indicates placement and aiming of such devices in the tower to miss the spire.
The duration of under-rubble hot-spots cannot be attributed to DEW or nuclear heat wave, because materials heated by such would have begun to cool as soon as the heat source stopped. 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the tower basements -- even ignoring fresh air limitations and fire-fighting efforts -- cannot account for the duration, as proven by math. Likewise, math proves nano-thermite with any combination of chemical-based explosives or indendiaries that were ~unspent~ from an original purpose of pulverization would be in quantities obscenely massive and not at all Occam Razor. Thus, as admitted by Dr. Steven Jones (September 2012), "Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite)."
The energy sources (neutron nuclear devices) -- and in particular from devices that failed or fizzled -- comes closest to explaining the duration of hot-spots and anomalies in those under-rubble fires. Need I name drop "Fukushima?"
When the tretris-evidence blocks of the meteorite and fused filing cabinet comes down that we must orient into our 9/11 theory stacks, we need not quibble that a DEW portion of the expected yield created something as opposed to other side-effects also playing a role.
The wall assemblies that fell and were streaming gray matter as if a mixture of smoke, steam, and disassociated matter should be recognized as the same wall assemblies "steamed cleaned to the beam's metal" on top of the piles.
Each floor of the towers had a steel pan on which the concrete slabs were poured. Between this and the steel outer wall assemblies, an EMP portion of the nuclear detonation would be largely mitigate except for what might slip out of window slits line-of-sight.
As part of my bat-shit, crazy speculation, I've often stated that the vehicle damage in the parking lot and along West Broadway could be attributed to Eddy Currents created by EMP escaping the towers.
However, I leave the door open to 9/11 WTC damage not being exclusively the domain of one weapons system. It could be many, particularly when the crater to WTC-6, the bore-holes to WTC-5, and the level of WTC-4's main edifice at a line with its North Wing are considered. Lasers from space aren't out of the question. The vehicle damage then might be attributed to (a) targeting corrections, (b) beam start-up, (c)_ beam fall-off.
Before the carousel gets cranked, Mr. Jeff Prager's analysis of the dust sampled by USGS proves existence and correlation of atomic elements indicative of fission. This is a valid nuclear clue, along with tritium. I attribute this to fission-triggering of fusion in the neutron device.
In conclusion, the above is an imperfect marrying of Dr. Wood's DEW theories with a neutron nuclear devices to explain how the towers' content were pulverized.
=======
While I have your reading attention, here is a repeated quote.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
++++ quote
Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
...
Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
- ETC —
...
[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
++++ end quote
//
x157 Maxwell C. Bridges : columns close to ground level were not cut at that point in time
2014-02-23
Ms. Kim Mantenga in discussing the anomaly of the antenna wrote: "[I]f the core columns were cut using thermite just a few floors above the ground, the sudden JERK of the core columns falling those few floors to the ground first, WOULD cause the antenna to plummet simultaneously WITH the top of the building (as we see occurred) pulling the whole top of the building down !"
I disagree. The core columns were cut somewhere close to the "impact" level where initiation of the destruction began. Moreover, I venture further, due to the way the upper structure accordians-in on itself before significant portions of the lower line of the "pile-driver" progresses 10+ levels below the "impact" level, a destructive force was aimed up through the upper pile-driver. David Chandler calculated that the roof line progressed into lower structure at two-thirds gravitational acceleration, indicating that two-thirds of its structural integrity was suddenly zapped. This would result in the sagging and telescoping of the antenna into the accordianing upper block.
The existance of the spire is also proof that columns close to ground level were not cut at that point in time. Both towers have a portion of their demise that seems to happen around a core area that is left standing before it is, too, taken down. The spire is way more pronounced that what happens in the other tower.
//
x158 Maxwell C. Bridges : conventional controlled demolitions have several issues
2014-02-23
Dear Mr. Keith Kampschaefer,
Conventional controlled demolitions have several issues in being able to account for the evidence.
First of all, destruction is one level of planning and implementation, while "overkill pulverization" is another and is a logistics hurdle in the short time bomb-sniffing dogs took holidays in the days preceding 9/11.
Second, the brissance to achieve such pulverization from chemical-based explosives and incendiaries would have very loud. A nugget of truth from Dr. Sunder of NIST is that such would have been deafening at 1/2 a mile, yet we have no reports of survivors and witnesses suffering damaging hearing loss.
Third, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots need to be accounted for. Sure, the 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel under the towers was available, but there's a contradiction between alleged heat and fresh air sources under the pile and how long it could burn so reportedly hot. The presence of unspent-from-original-purposes chemical-based explosives/incendiaries does not mathematically extend how long improbable diesel-fueled fires burned.
//
x159 Maxwell C. Bridges : magnetized to door knobs and door handles
2014-02-23
Ms. Norma Rae while showing a picture of police car 2345 wrote: "The weapon on 9/11 seemed magnetized to door knobs and door handles. It wiped them out."
No, not at all.
Before I explain why, let it be known that this police car was not "zapped" here at the bridge. It was towed there. Pictorial evidence of this car while still on fire exists, and it was in the middle of an intersection.
If we were to attribute such vehicle damage to, say, an EMP side-effect of a nuclear device, this is how it would happen. Line-of-sight the EMP would generate Eddy Currents in what was hit of the sheet metal of the vehicles. Large Eddy Currents concentrated in an area generates heat. Enough heat, and things attached to the metal can be ignited. Paint, plastic door handles, rubber seals, etc. Once a fire has been started one place, other factors come into play regarding if, when, and how it spreads.
Debunkers of EMP will mention firemen caught in a stairwell with working radios. Each floor of the towers consisted of a metal pan over which the concrete was laid. Several of these in tact between a detonation and the firemen's equipment in a stairwell would offer protection.
Dr. Blevins writes: "This is evidence of a low temperature process. If an extremely hot process destroyed the WTC, the firemen from Stairwell B would have been burned."
Or it means that the heat wave of the closest nuclear device detonation (that powered DEW) was tactical in nature and didn't reach them.
//
x160 WTC Energy Surplus : the huge, physically impossible lies of 9/11 persist
http://911u.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html
PREFACE
It is to the eternal shame of early-21st century physicists, engineers, scientists, and other supposed luminaries and intellectuals that the huge, physically impossible lies of 9/11 persisted. On 9/11, we witnessed an unprecedented display of highly unconventional technological destructive capability. The conventional explanation we were provided, by government and media, for a top-down highly destructive gravitational collapse, in near-free-fall times, is physically impossible, and is thus about as worthy of discussion as is the belief that the Earth is flat.
In our opinion, the deafening silence in confronting such an impossible lie amounts to a hugely dishonest lie of omission, and complicity in a monstrous crime against humanity. If our scientists and educators and political leaders and other authority figures and tax-exempt foundations and corporate sources of information can lie to us about this, what else might they be hiding?
Many of us know what we think about the otherwise-good German scientists and intellectuals and opinion-leaders who failed to confront Nazi lies in Germany 70 years ago, and the huge costs to mankind related to that failure, and like to think that we are wise enough to learn from history. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case. What we have now is ~ 75% who just keep their heads down, complicity silent; ~ 20% who (would like us to) believe that chemical explosives, in a kind of oversized but conventional controlled demolition, brought down the towers, and ~ 5% who claim that only exotic weaponry, typically Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), can account for the highly unconventional ""Ground Zero"" evidence.
We agree that only exotic weaponry can account for the ""Ground Zero"" damage, but consider the DEW claims unwarranted and gratuitously complex and vague, probably intentionally so (ie, noise), to not only stoke the enigma and stifle resolution but also to make any other discussion in any similar direction seem like the rantings of "yet another one" who seems intent on blurring the lines between reality and "science fiction".
DEW proponents seem to believe that it is no more of a problem to direct than to produce the enormous amount of energy necessary to mostly annihilate a large skyscraper in less than half a minute. We disagree, based upon general technological principles and also multiple reasons to believe that the destructive energy was released at ""Ground Zero"" by fissionless fusion devices, also known as tactical nuclear weapons, that had been placed inside the buildings -- a technologically simpler explanation which better fits the evidence.
We also note that the DEW proponents remain inconsistently and thus strangely mute regarding the best visual evidence in support of the use of DEWs at ""Ground Zero"": the incredibly brief bright burst of light which preceded/accompanied the intersection of an aircraft the government claims to have been Flight 11 with the North tower wall (1). For those DEW proponents to go out of their way to connect invisible dots while willfully blinding themselves to visible ones calls into question whether their behavior is truly motivated by an honest desire for full disclosure of all the lies of 9/11.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The first nuclear explosions (over New Mexico and Japan in 1945) were known as atom bombs, or A-bombs. Technically speaking, they were all fission devices, since the energy they released came from the fissioning, or splitting, of heavy unstable atoms such as uranium or plutonium. This unleashes a lot of energy, and also leaves behind a lot of radioactivity.
The second generation of nuclear explosions (many over atolls in the Pacific) were known as hydrogen bombs, or H-bombs. Technically speaking, they were all fusion devices, since the energy they released came from the fusing, or combining, of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. This is how the Sun works. Fusion unleashes a tremendous amount of energy, without a lot of lingering radioactivity.
Fission and fusion reactions are difficult to get started. Just as a conventional explosive needs some kind of triggering event, so do nuclear detonations. It takes a special trigger to create the conditions necessary to get a fission chain reaction to commence. The threshold for starting a fusion reaction is even higher. In fact, for decades, hydrogen bombs used atom bombs for their triggers -- there simply was no other way of achieving the extremely high temperatures at which fusion occurs.
Obviously, then, the first H-bombs were significantly larger than A-bombs. They were capable of destroying entire cities. Their TNT-equivalences were measured in megatons rather than kilotons. And their fission triggers left behind plenty of radioactivity.
THE HISTORY OF "911TRUTH" PHYSICS
In the wake of the 9/11 attack, up sprang a 9/11 "truth movement". Back in 2003, its leading voice regarding the huge energy surplus at ""Ground Zero"" was Jim Hoffman. Hoffman published an analysis of the energy requirements to have driven the expansion of the spectacular pyroclastic flow (what he termed a "dust cloud") following the 'collapse' of the North Tower, and found it to be at least 10 times more than what the tower could have provided gravitationally, thus disproving and invalidating the government's and media's claims regarding the cause and "gravitational" nature of its destruction.
Despite the clarity and correctness (except for one large, energy-downplaying, assumption about the expansion ratio) of Hoffman's analysis, and despite the fact that he was embraced and promoted by the so-called 911truth 'movement', neither Hoffman nor the 'movement' ever did much with it.
Even more puzzling is the fact that even though Hoffman had proved that we could not blame the demise of the twin towers on airplanes (hijacked or otherwise), he insisted that we could all still take the government's and media's word for what hit the towers (and why). He went further, publishing web pages that, while they appeared to be critical of the government's and media's claims, actually supported the core lies about hijackers and hijacked airliners, even when that meant willfully omitting contradictory/exculpatory evidence. (2)
Is it honest to continue to blame 9/11 on hijackers even after we know that we can not blame the too-rapid too-energetic demise of the twin towers on airplanes?
In retrospect, it appears that Hoffman's physics analysis was intended merely to imbue him with credibility and standing among 9/11 skeptics as a leading powerful critic of the government and media regarding 9/11, so he would be trusted (and not suspected, but followed) when he subsequently turned around and declined to denounce, and even defended, some of the related, more central, enemy-creating lies of 9/11.
FISSIONLESS FUSION
Physicists and well-informed individuals had been aware, since the 1990s, of the then-newfound possibility of achieving fusion without fission. It was not a secret, and some of that information remains in the public domain:
Here is a publication of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) referring to high energy laser fusion developments from the mid-1990s. It concludes with, "several years of hard work lie ahead in exploring the fast-ignitor concept with the Petawatt. The overall goal, as it was with the development of Livermore's first generation of lasers, is to speed the arrival of laser fusion as a source of virtually inexhaustible energy for society."
Here is a 2002 publication of the U.S. Navy. It refers to "a krypton-fluoride (KrF) laser to produce thermonuclear burn in small spherical pellets" as the energy source for a commercial fissionless fusion nuclear power plant.
And here is an article about a high school student, Thiago Olson, having achieved 200 million degree (ie, certainly not cold) fusion, without fission, in his garage in 2006, using parts mostly found on eBay. Since then, that feat has been replicated by high school student Eric Foss (16 17 18) and 14-year-old Taylor Wilson, among others.
So, armed with this information, and the resulting knowledge, or at least belief, that Professor Jones was lying, we felt encouraged to consider the very possibility that Dr. Steven E. Jones, PhD, U.S. DoE fusion expert, had told us to pay no attention to.
Once the requirement (and tell-tale radioactive signature) of a fission trigger is eliminated, a fusion reaction needn't be large enough to destroy a city. Given that a high school student has non-destructively achieved a 200 million degree plasma ("star in a jar") in his garage, it is no longer impossible to imagine a fissionless fusion-based tactical nuclear "hand grenade" (or a modern, fission-free H-bomb trigger) whose thermal output is capable of turning to plasma everything within a 10 foot radius.
ENERGY: QUANTITY vs INTENSITY
If you've ever lit a match or cigarette lighter, you're probably well aware that there is a big difference between having an 1800 degree flame in a room and having all the air in a room at 1800 degrees. In the case of the former, the closer you get to the flame, the hotter the air is. Or if you're soaking in a bathtub, and the water gets a little cool, you can add a little bit of very hot water to make the tub water warmer. You won't get burned by the very hot water unless you get too close to the hot water supply.
In other words, heat disperses. A high-intensity heat source dissipates energy -- by conduction, convection, radiation -- through its surroundings. Thermodynamics tells us that heat moves from hotter matter to colder matter. So a source of heat will cause a region of hotter temperatures, typically hottest at the center, where the source is.
Recall the problems with trying to use conventional causes (including chemical explosives) to account for the unconventional evidence at ""Ground Zero"":
Pyroclastic debris flows (4) => volcano-like energy amount (5)
Molecular dissociation (6) (7) => Sun-like energy intensity (8)
Enduring "hot spots" (9) (10) (11) => persistent energy release (12)
The first two are a study in energy quantity versus energy intensity: a little more "star" (plasma) than can fit in a "jar" could contain as much energy as a volcanic eruption, by (initially) containing much higher temperatures in a much smaller region.
Few civilians had much experience observing the effects of a small thermonuclear detonation in an urban setting. So if they saw one, and were given some other explanation for its strange appearance, would they know they'd been deceived? How? What does a region of plasma look like, and how does it behave at the boundary between 2 regions, one where molecules exist and a more energetic one where they don't? And what does that boundary look like?
A POSSIBLE ""GROUND ZERO"" SCENARIO
Taking the above data points, and the fissionless fusion possibility, into account, we have formulated a hypothesis of how the WTC skyscrapers were annihilated. We publish this not to engage in any distractive divisive conclusion-leaping competition among and between 9/11 researchers -- it is far more important for the American people to recognize that they've been tricked than to understand precisely how. But it does annoy us to see so-called leading 9/11 researchers acting to divide 9/11 truth seekers into various camps without addressing this possibility, just as it bothers us to see misleading politicians hyping wind and solar and other energy sources (and considering additional construction of old-fashioned, dirty, fission-based nuclear power plants) without this possibility even being mentioned.
In other words, it's not that we are eager to speculate on this possibility, but no one else (13) has, and we believe that democracy is dependent upon the free and open exchange of ideas and information. If fissionless thermonuclear devices were employed at ""Ground Zero"", it is likely that anyone who recognized their handiwork being misused against American civilians had previously been sworn to secrecy, so they are unlikely to speak up. Professors at colleges and universities are, for the most part, not imbeciles; they know that the money for their salaries and research grants and advanced research equipment has government and military-industrial complex strings attached to it. (Evidently the pull of social gravity and/or some other unseen force[s] somehow constrains the collective conscience, and otherwise-good individuals can be herded into going along with an impossible lie, even if only by their silence.)
Funding for Tactical Nuclear Weapons (14) has appeared in past Congressional budgets. TNW had seemed unimaginable -- a seemingly impossible contradiction in terms -- prior to 9/11. But now that we've seen such intense devastation -- annihilation -- in a confined region, let's consider and explore the possibility of their (mis)use on 9/11. Remember, without the requirement of a fission trigger, a fusion device can be made tiny -- just include less fusion fuel -- compared to the first H-bombs.
So when we see pictures of chunks of the walls of the towers trailing roiling plumes of particles behind as they fall after having been blown outward from the perimeter columns, we can draw conclusions from such observations. First of all, the pressure of the air (or plasma) inside the tower was undoubtedly much higher than that of the air outside the tower. Second, the exterior walls had suddenly become very hot, apparently on the order thousands of degrees or more.
Given how heat disperses, and the radial symmetry about the vertical axis to the destruction of the towers, it is therefore reasonable to deduce that temperatures along a thin line within the core of the towers (think of the lead inside a wood pencil) were very high indeed, probably very much higher than the tens of thousands of degrees at which molecular dissociation occurs.
How could a line (like the pencil lead) of extremely high temperatures have been achieved?
An extremely powerful lightning bolt might approach that, but how could a lightning bolt be created along that path, and, more puzzling, what would its source of energy be? (Note that Hoffman has speculated on the possibility of large banks of capacitors fed by the power station under WTC7, but that seems grossly insufficient.) And how could a lightning bolt, with its nearly instantaneous propagation time, be used to mimic a much slower gravitational collapse?
Like a string of pearls, a linear series of points approximates a line. And if each "pearl", in a vertical string, were to detonate at a controlled interval, after a small delay, that could be used to mimic the rate of a(n exceptionally rapid) gravitational collapse, by approximating the rate of a free-fall.
The inverse square law tells us how energy intensity diminishes with distance from a point source. But intensity diminishes less rapidly with distance from a line source. In fact, it diminishes linearly, rather than by the square of the distance. So an approximated vertical line, formed by a sequential string of point sources each with a 10 foot disintegration radius, could result in a vertical cylinder with up to a 100 foot disintegration radius, which approximates what occurred within the twin towers.
A vertical series of fusion point sources, placed every few floors (in other words, a vertical chain of about 35 such devices), could approximate a thin vertical cylinder of Sun-like temperatures. If such devices could be made directional (and point up), so that each detonation did not immediately destroy the device a few floors below it, which needed to survive a fraction of a second before it detonated (in order to come close to mimicking a gravitational collapse rate), this might be feasible. That would also help explain the initial upward trajectory of so much of the towers' mass during the 'collapses' as (supposedly only) gravity was pulling them down.
100 airplanes could not have caused this
According to this graphic and web page, LLNL's unconventional, Fast-Ignitor laser triggered fusion energy output is not spherically symmetrical; it is directional:
So let's visualize a vertical chain of tiny, directional thermonuclear devices something like this (not to actual scale or speed):
WTC animated GIF sequence of upward explosions
Of course, that still means that dozens of such devices would need to be reliably triggered in a precise sequence in the proximity of small directional thermonuclear events. Is such a feat possible? It is our belief that such a feat was possible but not 100% reliable. If it approached, say, 95% reliability, that would still be sufficient to mostly disintegrate the skyscrapers (and eradicate asbestos molecules) while creating the illusion of a(n overly rapid) gravitational collapse. If 35 such devices were used per tower and perhaps another 20 in WTC7, that would mean that around 90 devices were employed.
It is part of our dot-connecting hypothesis that the sources of energy responsible for the hot spots reported in the media (molten (10) and yellow- (11) and red-hot (9) metal weeks after 9/11, "fires" which could not be extinguished for 99 days despite constant dousing with water 12) were some damaged small fissionless thermonuclear devices (IOW, the 5% that were duds) among the ruins, which released their energy slowly, at (tens of) thousands of degrees, instead of all at once, at (hundreds of) millions of degrees.
9/11 is an example of the darkest of clouds having the most silvery of linings:
Ground Zero was a working demonstration of a new energy paradigm -- one with the potential of solving virtually all of our civilization's energy, economic, and ecological concerns!
The first televised videos of the 'collapse' events were aired uncut, and provide a continuous look at the top-to-bottom destruction of the towers and the rise and expansion of the monstrous, heavier-than-air pyroclastic flows of debris which immediately followed. It appears the ground-hugging pyroclastic flows began as the top-down destruction of the towers was nearly complete (as the leading edge of the shroud of falling debris was reaching ground level). The discrepancy between the timing of the end of the "collapse" event and beginning of the flow event is another indication that they occurred independently, and the expansions of the large pyroclastic flows (15) were driven by separate, significantly larger energy releases emanating from the basements, around the time the towers had come all the way down (or their height had been reduced to ground level, depending upon how one thinks of it).
The huge vertical particle plumes briefly left behind where the towers had stood moments earlier offer mute testimony to the fact that [solid] floors did not sequentially pancake downward -- that would have taken significantly longer, been far less destructive, and appeared far different than what was observed.
x161 Atahan Ganduu : Ganduu Carousel #8: have you read "where did the towers go?"
2014-02-25
Atahan Ganduu (52 minutes ago) "And youre just being a neutron bomb, Maxwell. Have you read "where did the towers go?" By Judy Wood B.s M.s Ph.d"
Maxwell Bridges (35 minutes ago) Bot-Ganduu, we've already established (repeatedly and a long time ago) that I've read Dr. Wood's book cover-to-cover, chapter-by-chapter, page-by-page, word-for-word. The fact that you ask again just underscores your non-human nature and your game playing. //
Atahan Ganduu (30 minutes ago) Sure you have maxwell.
Maxwell Bridges (23 minutes ago) Obviously bot-Ganduu, you haven't exchanged messages with Mr. Abe Rodriquez or Mr. Matthew Naus, who both cranked carousels with me on Truth & Shadows (Mr. Craig McKee's blog), and both have run away (twice now) rather than get into the nitty-gritty of Dr. Wood's book. None of the three of you will admit to the niggly errors present in her book that she should have fixed from her website before re-purposing verbatim in her book. Had you not been a bot and communicated with them, they would have informed you of my knowledge of the book, which is why they run away. You should, too. You do your cause a disservice. Like the quote says:
"We agree that only exotic weaponry can account for the ""Ground Zero"" damage, but consider the DEW claims unwarranted and gratuitously complex and vague, probably intentionally so (ie, noise), to not only stoke the enigma and stifle resolution but also to make any other discussion in any similar direction seem like the rantings of "yet another one" who seems intent on blurring the lines between reality and "science fiction"."
http://911u.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html
Atahan Ganduu (2 minutes ago) "Again, sure Maxwell"
x162 Maxwell C. Bridges : I'm leaving
2014-02-27
I'm leaving this group. If you want to converse with me, you can message me through FB or go to my blog.
Why leave?
First and foremost, Facebook is not designed for serious discussion. You can't rely on even the sequence that postings appear in, because "bump" comments under a posting can be sufficient to juke a posting back to the top.
Facebook doesn't provide tools for finding and organizing old content. It is pretty shitty for maintaining a public legacy, but really good at making a database of your comments available to alphabet-soup agencies to be used against you out of context.
Legacy isn't to be under-rated. Disinfo agents want to limit their legacy on the internet, because too much can be used against them and more easily exposes inconsistencies and lies. Facebook is ideal for them, because things shift into the never-never-land of the ether quickly.
Legacy, though, is what strengthens truth, even if that legacy documents human wobbling and failings through beliefs that change over time.
Secondly, I am leaving because of perceived insincerity of regular participants and admins. I've had an "ah-ha moment" in my participation here, but very few others have. Most come in here with glib copy-and-paste and very little depth, and aren't receptive to where their positions need to be tweaked. Holograms and Woodsian DEW come to mind.
Sure, I came in here championing neutron nuclear DEW, but have now shifted more into 4th-gen nuclear DEW due to what many say was low-heat in the effects. But do others go there? Do they attempt to acknowledge the nuggets of truth, let alone re-purpose them into something else?
The carousel was cranked too many times, repetition of the same questions, purposeful ignorance of the answers, an unwillingness to read, and deliberate mal-framing on concepts.
I'll hop off before I'm thrown off.
//
x163 Maxwell C. Bridges : did any outside sources check for radiation?
2014-03-02
Dear Mr. Kuhn,
Even though I'm not a member of "All Theories Welcome..." anymore, I'm still receiving notifications from threads that I subscribed to, and hence become aware of your question under a nuclear topic.
First, let me say that Dimitri K. (DK) probably has some nuggets of truth, but I'm convinced -- as a former Russian agent -- he is actively peddling nuclear disinformation in his "retirement." His nuclear premises are not well thought out and frame things wrong. His description does not match the observable evidence.
You asked: "[B]ut did any outside sources check for radiation?"
Promptly, systematically, and publicly are three words that do ~not~ apply to how radiation was measured at the WTC on 9/11. Most reports delayed their first sample taking by three or more days, which is a significant period of time for neutron devices or any 4th-generation nuclear device. Some of the reports are skewed by only using samples from, say, the East of the WTC. And, if there was such a radiation report that promptly (<24 hours) measured for radiation in a comprehensive and thorough fashion from all over the WTC, that report was never made public.
That's right. And those who peddle in "no radiation = no nukes" have the issue that no public report exists that promptly, systematically, and thoroughly measure for radiation and had all measurements at or below trace/background levels. So "no radiation" is something even they can't prove.
Actually, tritium was measured and is a radioactive by-product. Its existence handly disproves "no radiation", even though the reports on tritium did a wonderful song-and-dance that ultimately had to re-define what trace/background levels were in order to proclaim with a straight face and no lying ticks that all measurements were at or below trace/background levels.
Cameras and Geiger Counters were two devices whose brandishment at the WTC would have gotten the owner expelled and the equipment confiscated.
You asked: "Or, would there be any radiation?"
Neutron devices do not leave large levels of lingering radiation (alph, beta, gamma). They dissipate in 24-48 hours.
Neutron devices are based on fusion but allow the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Neutron radiation does not linger and takes special equipment to measure.
Tritium is a signature of fusion. The scope-limited reports that tried to peg tritium to building content -- airplane exit signs, sights off of police weapons, and time pieces -- achieved its goals of reducing public fear about the potential health impacts of tritium at the WTC, well below EPA thresholds. But that doesn't mean that their report can be the final authority on tritium. They didn't even speculate that the demolition mechanism could have been the source for the tritium in their haphazard samples... that they stopped taking when all measurements were supposedly below that EPA threshold.
It can be difficult to get the heat required for fusion, which is why fusion is often fission-triggered. The USGS dust samples show Uranium and other trace elements of fission in correlated quantities with respect to one another, when analyzed properly (like Mr. Jeff Prager's work).
I am thoroughly convinced that 9/11 had nuclear components. Dr. Wood's description of DEW is easily met by these 4th generation nuclear devices, so the only surprising thing is Dr. Wood stopping her nuclear research and not going there.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment