Maxwell C. Bridges

Norma Rae
How did the nuke manage to miss the Bathtub? Nukes make holes. Anybody ready to bury the Nuclear Theory?
==============

Dear Ms. Rae,

You asked: "Where do you propose the device was located that caused the demise of the twin towers?"

Devices, Ms. Rae, 6 to 12 per tower. Let's say 12 for the sake of discussion. The top-most ones were probably in the computer rooms at, or right below, the "impact level," aimed upwards. About every tenth floor below that level had at least one device, aimed upwards, and possibly on alternating sides of what became known as the spire. If they alternated positions around the spire at each tenth floor, it would help reduce fracticide on the lower device by the detonation of the upper device.

Remember, if we consider these to be unique variants of neutron devices, they have a means of shucking off energy from the nuclear reaction by directing the highly energetic neutrons upwards. In this manner, other yields and side-effects of the detonation can be reduced to tactical levels, can be controlled better, and gives it the distinction of energy efficiencies in the 50% range. Fourth generation nuclear devices.

//

x171 Maxwell C. Bridges : thermal imaging report is ripe for having been manipulated

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Joy,

The various reports from NIST or sponsored by the government to supposedly thoroughly explain 9/11 have a track record of tricks and scientific sleight of hand. One example of such are the delays in measuring radiation,sufficient for the radiation of fusion devices to dissipate. Another example is the averaging of the 3 observed stages of WTC-7 demise together, so that they can proclaim with a straight face that the first 18 floors fell at an acceleration slower than free-fall, which is meant to hide the fact that stage 2 was indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration.

I embarrassed to say that the following is bat-shit crazy speculation without substantiation.

The thermal imaging report is ripe for having been manipulated. If I were to rescue a nugget of truth from the disinformation of September Clues and its "all imagery is tainted meme", it would be that the September 23, 2001 image of hot spots would be so easy to fake. And we can suspect that it was faked from the contradictory reports of those who worked the WTC scene.

I agree, though, that by September 23, many fires attributed to diesel fuel and office furnishings would have burned themselves out or been put out. But testimony of under-rubble hot-spots says that something else was at work.

I'm not sure how much masking of the thermal signature debris on top of the hot-spots could accomplish to get such a changed thermal mapping. As such, if a cover-up was to happen, faking the September 23, 2001 thermal image could go a long way. Even Dr. Wood picks it up and promotes it, and expresses doubt of even the existence of hot-spots and other things observed.

//

x172 Maxwell C. Bridges : scene setting quote

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Grage,

You wrote: "There are people all over the site before, after and during when these pictures are taken. I see them as fraud as you can't walk over 800F+ hot spots. How can you explain people and hot spots coexisting in the same location?"

I disagree with that assessment. People were not "all over the site before, after, and during when these pictures were taken." Here's a scene setting quote from Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant.

+++ begin quote

They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn't say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they'd say, "Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second." And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [Alex Jones: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn't take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn't control. ...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm
+++ end quote

Mr. Grage continues: "So if such hot spots existed, you'd expect to have visual warning, i.e. taped off areas, ..."

It can be hard for arm-chair theorists like myself to gauge the size of the WTC. This is one of the great things about Dr. Wood's book, because she collects images of the destruction and provides tables that reference map positions.

Owing to its size and that they had the operation under control with armed soldiers standing guard -- did you see the fleet of dump trucks arriving before the dust on day 1 had settled? -- I wouldn't expect them to be able to tape off some sections. Just too big. Easier to order workers: "Don't go there."

If September Clues has any nuggets of truth, it is that some amount of imagery manipulation did happen.

Mr. Grage wrote: "The dated pictures we can find seem arbitrary from different sources, same debris, etc."

Agreed. And not all of it might be authentic, and maybe was enhanced in some way.

//

x173 Norma Rae : classic Newtonian Physics works

2012-03-12

Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges The classic Newtonian Physics works here on earth when things travel at 500mph. Newton's theories cease to exist when you travel at the speed of light. Then you start using Einstein's theories.
15 hours ago · Edited · Like

Norma Rae The plane would have continued thru the glass windows, but the wings and fin would have been flung back when they struck the steel columns.
15 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Concrete is a lot less structurally sound than Steel and does not bode well when something crashes into it. So when you have the F4 Phantom Jet blowing up, we know that if it was ramming into steel columns it would blow up too. It would not have disappeared into the wall.
Norma Rae's photo.

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1.0-9/p261x260/1098017_10200971898859910_83005444_n.jpg

15 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae When you watch football, they replay a clip so they can see what happened. That's the same thing we have with the planes. We couldn't see the details at normal speed but when slowed down it is blatant, that a plane could not have slipped it's way in the way they want us to believe it did.
15 hours ago · Like

x174 Maxwell C. Bridges : speed of light discussions

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

You wrote: "The classic Newtonian Physics works here on earth when things travel at 500mph. Newton's theories cease to exist when you travel at the speed of light. Then you start using Einstein's theories."

No need to get into speed of light discussions.

Stop missing the point, Ms. Rae, which is energy. Over and over, your comments reflect an understanding of collision physics for velocities of up to, say, 150 mph, like from car crashes. The energies involved in such collisions will shatter the hell out of plastic components of the car, will deform metal, and will shear bolts & hinges holding the vehicle and its components together. If you were filming the event with a high speed camera, rapid deceleration will be observed.

If high speed footage were taken of the plane impacts, certainly they would show tiny amounts of deceleration that the existing footage can't capture. When the velocities increase to 500 mph (or ~3 x 150 mph), the available energy increases by almost 10 times. Metals and components that only deformed at lower energies can "deform into shatters" quickly at higher energies, too quick for slow-footage video to capture what is happening. The shattering effects isn't observed at lower velocities (except of the plastic), because the energy is insufficient.

Ms. Rae writes: "The plane would have continued thru the glass windows, but the wings and fin would have been flung back when they struck the steel columns."

No, not necessarily. Your statements about wings flinging back is another example of your understanding of physics with velocities much less than 160 mph. If the energies don't exceed the structural energies of the involved materials (of the wing), sure, the wing will deform but remain more or less a cohesive whole (or several cohesive parts). The connection with the fuselage might be the weak one, allowing the wings to shear off and bounce off the building.

However, velocities were greater and energy was greater. Plus, the wings were a cohesive whole just prior to impact. Portions of the wings meeting with the low resistance of window slits would help pull, guide, and steer portions of the wings meeting with the higher resistance of the wall assembly box columns. Even when that much higher impact energies result in localized "shattering" of the wing, (1) momentum, (2) "affinitity" with intact wing portions, and (3) the path of least resistance into the structure would help determine its final deflection vectors.

In order for the wings to get a deflection vector backwards (e.g., flung back), you can't have window slits offering zero resistance to the forward momentum over ~50% of the length of the wing.

The tail fin is a similar situation.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Concrete is a lot less structurally sound than Steel and does not bode well when something crashes into it. So when you have the F4 Phantom Jet blowing up, we know that if it was ramming into steel columns it would blow up too. It would not have disappeared into the wall."

Correction, Ms. Rae. The Sandia F4 Phantom Jet did ~not~ "blow up" when impacting the concrete wall that had no zero-resistance gaps except at the ends. No. The rapid deceleration exceeded the structural strengths of the materials present in the aircraft. The aircraft's materials were shattered into tiny pieces, whose deflection was largely orthogonal to the very sturdy concrete wall. It did not blow up. The aircraft didn't have any fuel; the rocket sled might have.

Ms. Rae wrote: "When you watch football, they replay a clip so they can see what happened. That's the same thing we have with the planes."

No, it is ~not~. Your statement is another example of what I'm complaining about in your understanding of physics with velocities much less than 160 mph.

In fact, the football game involves velocities on the order of 16 mph, and the cameras have a fast enough frame rate to be able to capture it and slow it down. Cameras with similar frame rates were used to film the aircraft's 500 mph velocity. Unlike the 16 mph football tackle, the camera does not have the resolution frame-to-frame to show us meaningful details for something happening ~30 times faster.

Ms. Rae wrote: "We couldn't see the details at normal speed but when slowed down it is blatant, that a plane could not have slipped it's way in the way they want us to believe it did."

This is insufficient. Do the math, Ms. Rae.

+++ begin quote
The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second. ... In the motion picture industry, where traditional film stock is used, the industry standard filming and projection formats are 24 frames per second (fps).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
+++ end quote

For example, object A is going 8 mph (e.g., football receiver) and object B is going 500 mph (e.g., jet over stadium). Assume that 1 second was captured by a camera orthogonal to the objects' direction of travel.

mph = [miles/hour] * (1/60) [hour/min] * (1/60) [min/sec] * (5280/1) [ft/mile]
mph = (5280/3600) [ft/second] = 1.46 [ft/sec]

Object A: 10 [mph] = (10 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 14.6 [ft/sec]
Object B: 500 [mph] = (500 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 730 [ft/sec]

- A receiver running 10 mph for 10 yards (30 ft) for the first down would take ~2 seconds, or 48 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 30 feet would take 0.041 seconds, or 0.98 frames.
- A receiver running 10 mph for 200 ft would take ~13 seconds, or 312 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 200 feet (e.g., length of 767-400ER) would take 0.27 seconds, or 6.57 frames.

The resolution per frame is vastly different between humans in a football game and a speeding aircraft. Slowing down the playback of the camera is not going to help. Only high-speed cameras of the event would be able to show clearly what was happening.

//

x175 Maxwell C. Bridges : complete lack of evidence that would support demolision

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You wrote: "The complete lack of evidence that would support demolision or nuke theories has been covered up an therefore proves those theories."

Very nice try at spinning.

First of all, there is tons of evidence that would support demolition. The pulverization that happened at gravitational acceleration is a glaring one. The energy sink of pulverization is another. The Uranium and correlation of elements in the dust are yet another.

Secondly, when you refer to the cover-up and its ability to suppress evidence, you ignore that the cover-up cuts both ways. By that I mean that what they rely on to state so confidently "no radiation therefore no nukes" is flawed. It does not decisively prove "no radiation." Moreover, the delays and unsystematic approach in measuring for radiation is a loop-hole big enough that you could explode a few dozen 4th generation nuclear devices in and be able to state with a straight face "no radiation."

One can point to the suppression of information as part of the cover-up. But there are ample examples of information getting out (like raw data, interviews, etc.) but where the official reports did not mention such data and/or did not attempt to make any analysis of it. There are ample examples of reports using a very curious limited set of samples, drawing dubious conclusions that might be somewhat valid for its limited scope, but then having its conclusions -- flaws and all -- deliberately extrapolated into a larger work where it doesn't apply or can't be the sole source. Surely this counts as a cover-up, too.

You wrote: "Everything put forward to support the official proposition is a fake."

This is your interpretation, but not my position at all. You don't have to tweak very much in order to steer. The tritium report re-defined trace/background levels. The reports on radiation had significant delays on when it was measured and ultimately used only 3 sets of samples, all from the East side. It didn't even mentioned what was measured or what the standard for trace/background level was.

It doesn't take much effort to photoshop a thermal image to get it to appear much cooler than it was. Only one image, and all sorts of faulty conclusions are made.

//

x176 Maxwell C. Bridges : don't seriously believe that a nuclear device

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard wrote:

"You dont seriously believe that a nuclear device brought down the WTC do you?"

I do ~not~ believe that "a nuclear device" destroyed the WTC.

I believe that multiple 4th-generation nuclear devices per tower destroyed the WTC.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1423820681196245/

//

x177 Maxwell C. Bridges : underneath the buildings

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

Your asked: "How do you suppose those devices got underneath the buildings, assuming you think they were under the buildings?"

It is the former Russian agent, Dimitri K., who believes that nuclear devices were under the buildings.

I do not.

The 4th generation nuclear devices that I am talking about expell most of their energy as highly energetic neutrons upwards to get them out of the way. This then reduces other output yields to tactical levels. More and more I'm leaning towards further tweaking and aiming of those remaining output yields (ala Project Excalibur and X-ray lasers).

For the sake of discussion, we could say 12 such devices per tower, therefore placed every 10 floors or so, possibly alternating which side of the spire they are mounted on.

Potential energy and gravity can't explain the pulverization of content so early in each towers' demise. It also doesn't explain the hot-spots that burned under the rubble until December. Shoots down the official story.

Chemical based explosives and incendiaries have several issues relating to the observed outcomes, as well as logistics hurdles. For instance, to achieve pulverization -- an observed outcome --, a certain quantity is required. As but one nugget of truth from NIST's Dr. Sunder, such quantities would be deafening at distances under 1/2 mile. Hearing loss is not one of the ailments of those survivors and witnesses. Another for instance is the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, which extrapolates to obscenely massive quantities of such explosives that would be ~UNSPENT~ from its original pulverizing purposes.

Tweaked nukes don't have to have this decibel issue, because they aren't necessarily destroying things with their blast waves. Even a couple of dozen per tower is less effort to install than the requisite amounts of chemical based devices, which in turn have to be snuck into the towers and placed in the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took a holiday prior to 9/11.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html

//

x178 Maxwell C. Bridges : Who would want to put them there and why?

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You asked: "So how were 12 of these devices planted in these buildings without anyone noticing?"

Who says they weren't noticed? Tenants on other floors of the towers noted construction (sounds) on supposedly empty floor. Dusty desks and monitors proved some work was done overnight. One curious tenant took a peak at one of the floors supposedly prepping for a new tenant and notice nothing of the sort.

All tenants talk about weekends when there were power outages. Several hours existed between after the cleaning crews left each night and before the first tenants/employees arrive next morning.

You asked: "Who would want to put them there and why?"

Follow the money. The towers were asbestos white elephant whose cost to fix were exceeded revenue projections. Due to the asbestos, they couldn't be destroyed legally either. Insure them against terrorists attacks and then claim that each plane was a separate attack, you've uncovered one monetary motive out of many.

The vaults under WTC-4 contained unknown amounts of gold. After 9/11, some of the gold was recovered, but it wasn't in the vault. It was loaded in a tractor trailer truck that was left abandoned in underground garages.

WTC-7 had SEC records whose destruction aided the rich defendants in more than one case.

The Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion on 9/10. By 9/11, it didn't matter. The Office of Naval Intelligence, who was the only group to move into the renovated wing and who was investigating this, had all of its investigators and all of its records wiped out with the strike at the Pentagon.

The Black Eagle Fund (gold stolen from Jews by the Nazis) and the Marcus Fund (gold stolen from the Chinese by the Japanese) were found by the Americans but not repatriated with their rightful owners after WWII. Instead they were used to fund black ops. In the early 1990's, President G.H.W.Bush essentially took out a 10 year note against this gold and used it to bankrupt the Russian economy, buying up gas and oil concerns, etc. This note came due just after 9/11.

Under the pretense that the terrorist attacks destabilized the stock markets, when they re-opened the stock market, they relaxed certain controls that then laundered billions, including the aforementioned note. [As an aside, this money coming back into the system fueled the housing bubble. Under banking rules of partial reserve, the money coming into the system could be loaned out again many times over, which they did to even those who wouldn't normally qualify, which is why adjustable rate mortgages were devised with teaser interest rates that then went up and wiped out the fortunes of many normal people.] The put-options placed against the airlines involved in 9/11 -- although never collected -- is indicative of insider knowledge and a monetary motive.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) documented in 1999 what the neo-con's wanted, and it reads like a checklist for what they actually accomplished once they had stolen the White House in 2000. Control of oil and natural gas were part of the plan. Changing the reasons for why and how the US goes to war, permanent military presence in the Middle East, etc. were also part of the plan. This can be interpreted as war profiteering, of which Halliburton was pretty successful.

The bottom line is that a monetary motive lies behind the operation and answered the WHY.

Kevin Ryan's book "Another 19" is worth reading to learn more about the how.

//

x179 Maxwell C. Bridges : wildly inaccurate

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You asked a question. I answered it. Now you're just splitting hairs and spinning it to your own benefit.

I wrote: "The towers were asbestos white elephant whose cost to fix were exceeded revenue projections"

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "This is not wildly inaccurate. The cost to remove or renovate would have been a fraction of what it cost Silverstein properties , having paid several billion dollars for the lease."

Nope, what you wrote, Mr. Aveyard, is "wildly inaccurate." Silverstein paid only $14 million of his own money for the lease, not billions. Even though he tried to get $3.55 billion coverage per event ($7.1 billion), his insurance payout was capped at $4.55 billion. Even if he pays back others in the venture ($3.2 billion), he's still got $1.3 billion in profit. Millions to billions is a big ROI.

+++ begin quote

Asbestos is a mineral, airborne fibers of which can cause severe and untreatable respiratory disease, with typical latencies of several decades. The recognition of the toxicity of asbestos has led to legislation for its survey and removal from structures. The removal is expensive because the removal operation must be quarantined and subject to rigorous decontamination procedures. Removal of asbestos used as structural fireproofing in steel framed high-rises is complicated by the fact that the fireproofing covers an intricate lattice of steel in the most difficult-to-access places.

Some sense of the cost of removing the asbestos from the Twin Towers can be obtained by the example of 55 Broad Street. The removal of asbestos in that building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was five times the cost of the building's construction 15 years before. 3

Another example is the 60-story Montparnasse Tower in Paris. Experts estimate that the removal of asbestos from this building would take three years with full evacuation, and ten years if the building were to remain occupied during the operation. 4

According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal). 5

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html

+++ end quote

Moral of the story is that it would not have been cheap to fix the asbestos problem.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Construction work in a building as large as the WTC. Are you saying that was usual? It would be unusual for nothing to be going on in a building that size housing so much office space."

I did not say construction work was unusual. You asked how the nuclear devices would have been installed, and I gave you a valid answer.

What was unusual is that when a curious tenant went to see why modifications were made to an area supposedly to prepare for a new tenant, he saw nothing: no offices, no raised floors, no cubicles, etc.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "That is no evidence. Where is the eye witness saying they saw one of these devices you speak of. You are making an assumption that any building work must have been the work of people planting these devices."

Oh, blow it out your ass, Mr. Aveyard. If the device is brought into the towers at 3 am -- after the cleaning crew has left --, who's gonna see it? And even if someone were to see something other than a wooden crate or something resembling a refrigerator, are they going to know what it was?

Yes, I make the assumption that just about any building work must have been the work of people planting these devices, because the towers were UNDER OCCUPIED. Tenants were leaving, not moving in. If work gets performed (known from the sounds and dust) that doesn't result in something resembling habitable space for a new tenant and if the building subsequently gets destroyed in a truly spectacular fashion, then by golly the assumption is fair.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Has anyone bothered to find out who the preferred supplier was to carry our renovation or construction work. There can't be more than a handful. How about asking them what they were doing in the previous six months to the terrorist attack?"

Sound like a good job for you. Hop to it. Chop, chop!

[Don't be pawning your busy-work off onto me. You want to know? You research it. I don't want to be left holding the bag of researching it for you and then you ignoring the answer.]

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Power outages at the weekend, what is unusual about that? You expect it when your having building work done. Again this is not evidence of people planting nuclear devices."

You'll just have to research this one on your own as well. What was unusual is that the notice for the outage was short notice ~AND~ was so comprehensive, it took down all electronic security measures as well. Your research will prove that it was an IT guy claiming it, and he noted it because his job was to bring down all servers in a computer room before the outage, and then bring them back up afterwards. The duration was too long for battery-back-ups.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "They had neither the means nor the motive to destroy the building having only acquired the building in 2000. And they could have known they'd win the bid."

Nonsense. It wasn't just Silverstein. Look into Kevin Ryan's "Another 19" and you'll see that neither means nor motive were lacking.

Silverstein actually lost the bid. But then the winner of the bid backed out of the deal, giving the bid to Silverstein. Coincidence?

//

x180 FB Participants ATW : What would be the benefit and not just plain DEW

2014-03-13

Atahan Ganduu
Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges What would be the benefit of using a nuclear device and not just plain DEW to accomplish the task?

Norma Rae 12:56am Mar 13
Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges This is the physics observed from a jet, that a robustly built, and is traveling at 500mph and the physics observed is that things get flung back when they hit something solid. The steel perimeter column had a solid plate. You pretend to underestimating them because they are solid posts. You don't need a solid post when you are using steel. A structural column has enough structural rigidity to hold up several thousand tons of mass. They aren't going to crumble like concrete does.

https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F1408668326044814%2Fpermalink%2F1427576867487293%2F&aref=1338475&medium=email&mid=98b5601G5af4d1a72decG146c6bG12e&bcode=1.1394694355.AblKRWZpQAKaT0oz&n_m=maxwell.bridges%40maxbridges.us

Norma Rae 1:05am Mar 13
Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges Which would take a greater impact force: a 1" thick reinforced concrete slab or a 1" steel plate?

We all know the answer is a 1" steel plate. You are trying to underestimate the steel columns by stating that they are 'hollow'. Do you realize that you can have them hollow because of their ability to withstand buckling. They hold up tons of mass.

Do you think you could get away with the same dimensions if the columns were reinforced concrete? The answer is no. You would need much thicker columns to provide the same support.

So when a robustly built jet rams into this concrete wall, things get flung back, you would have similar effects if it was ramming into those steel columns. The lack of it indicates, planes did not hit the towers.

Norma Rae 1:08am Mar 13
Not to mention the 'plane' rammed into spandrels and concrete floors, you better believe there should have been things flying back.

https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F1408668326044814%2Fpermalink%2F1427576867487293%2F&aref=1338475&medium=email&mid=98b5737G5af4d1a72decG146c6bG12e&bcode=1.1394694665.Abl5CarTVCgzIH0O&n_m=maxwell.bridges%40maxbridges.us

Norma Rae 1:11am Mar 13
Maxwell Bridges wrote "In order for the wings to get a deflection vector backwards (e.g., flung back), you can't have window slits offering zero resistance to the forward momentum over ~50% of the length of the wing."

That's false. The steel beams would have shredded the wings and tail fin.

https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F1408668326044814%2Fpermalink%2F1427576867487293%2F&aref=1338475&medium=email&mid=98b57eeG5af4d1a72decG146c6bG12e&bcode=1.1394694848.AbkDg9C60aD9VVWV&n_m=maxwell.bridges%40maxbridges.us

Norma Rae 1:14am Mar 13
Maxwell Bridges wrote "Do the math, Ms. Rae"

No math necessary. A plane cannot disappear into a structural steel columns wall and concrete floors.

Norma Rae 1:21am Mar 13
Maxwell Bridges wrote "The resolution per frame is vastly different between humans in a football game and a speeding aircraft. Slowing down the playback of the camera is not going to help."

How do you know what the resolution of the cameras were?

Steve Grage 10:45pm Mar 12
After review of the posts above, I don't find much to counter my understandinging there were no hot spots. The white vapor is not smoke, steam, or radioactive dust. The evidence shows it is a continual breakdown of material called fuming by Dr. Wood. Those in hazmat suits perhaps know the air is hazardous because of small pariticle sizes not radiation. There were fires, but they were weird in that they don't burn anything. A technically sound person knows that picture with grappling claws lifting glowing metal is not showing molten metal being handled. The PsyOp has many flaws we can pick apart. Again, thermite, molten metal, nuclear blast all a ruse. In time, we will prove this to all with your effort and study.

Peter Aveyard 2:41am Mar 13
Mr Maxwell Bridges, its not splitting hairs if we are taking about your proposition that the motive for the crime is money. And you inferred it was Silverstein who was behind it. That is not splitting hairs, it underpins your argument.

The fact is the cost to fix would pale into insignificance compared to the revenue Silverstein could expect. It makes no sense on a financial level.

Even if it were true, which it isn't, the return on the investment in this crime doesn't add up. Any insurance received would be far outweighed by the cost of delays due to rebuilding, delays due to the inevitable investigation. Not to mention the phenominal cost of funding this crime.

You are also ignoring the fact of the risks associated with staging this hoax would be so of putting even someone as dumb George Bush could see it would never work.

You cannot seriously believe that Silvetstein thought that a good way to make money would be to destroy the WTC thereby murdering thousands of innocent people, by staging a fake terrorist attack, involving hijacking passenger jets, planting nuclear devices. Bribing people or stealing these devices and some how planting them. And coming up with this plan and executing it within a few months. Don't forget they only acquired the building in 2000.

Whilst you may have a scientific basis for how the building could have been demolished, the means and motive are totally irrational.

Peter Aveyard 3:00am Mar 13
Mr Maxwell Brdges i refer to you comment that begins ... Oh blow it out of your arse..... Despite this ditribe, it remains that no one ever saw one of these devices you speak of our anything in the building that looked strange.

You have not a scrap of evidence that these things ever existed only your thought that they could have.

Whilst I support your research on the science, and you have the right to put this proposition forward, the fact is that so far your theory has zero evidence to support it and when we examine the rationale of this method it fails.

It's time to give up on this idea.

x181 Maxwell C. Bridges : not just plain DEW

2014-03-13

+++ 2014-03-13

Dear Ms. Rae,

You ask: "What would be the benefit of using a nuclear device and not just plain DEW to accomplish the task?"

What exactly is "just plain DEW", Ms. Rae?

How do you power "just plain DEW"?

How is the energy from "just plain DEW" aimed?

How much destructive energy can your "just plain DEW" generate and can it be adjusted?

Let me give you a hint. The most practical way of achieving your "just plain DEW" with sufficient energy to account for much of the observed destruction at the WTC would be your "just plain DEW" powered by something nuclear. A built in power supply that doesn't rely on distant hurricanes or Tesla energy from the atmosphere. Fourth generation nuclear weapons.

If your "just plain DEW" refers to Dr. Wood's work, let's be clear that she does not specify the devices' serial numbers. Nor does she specify their model number. She doesn't even dive into publicly available literature on nuclear devices to shed light on their classifications and which ones fit her theories best. There is a huge gap between her dangling innuendo and something real-world operational.

For all who champion Dr. Wood, it was expected that you would stand on her work's shoulders and take it to the next level, get it closer to the DEW device's classification, its model number, and maybe even its serial number some day in an open and fair court that tries the perpetrators.

//

+++ 2014-03-13

Dear Ms. Rae,

Rhetorically speaking, how much college-level or self-taught physics have you had? Just because my picture's alter-ego is "Heisenberg," doesn't mean that I'm a scientist either, but engineering studies do require their share of such classes. Instead of arguing with me about physics from a weak educational position, maybe you should let my explanations sink in.

You wrote: "This is the physics observed from a jet, that a robustly built, and is traveling at 500mph and the physics observed is that things get flung back when they hit something solid."

Get it through your head. The tower walls were not solid. Half of the surface area consisted of windows. Can you say "slicing and dicing"?

You wrote: "The steel perimeter column had a solid plate."

The box columns of the wall assemblies were composed of 1/4" solid steel plates. The columns were not solid steal beams 14"x14". Spandrels connecting the box columns of a wall assembly ran horizontal at floor levels.

You wrote: "You pretend to underestimating them because they are solid posts."

No, you pretend to over-estimate them, because they are hollow box columns. You pretend to ignore the many places where bolts -- not 14"x14" box columns -- were severed from the impact allowing the pushing and bending movement on these wall assemblies, which has significantly less energy requirements than outright cutting these 1/4" plates, despite the damage having the appearance of a cookie-cutter crisp outline of a plane from the distance.

You wrote: "A structural column has enough structural rigidity to hold up several thousand tons of mass."

So what? How much energy does it take to bend a box-column of 1/4" steel measuring 14"x14"x3 stories?

You wrote: "[The box columns] aren't going to crumble like concrete does."

And they didn't, either. Entire wall assemblies got pushed in cases; individual box columns got bent in cases; and in some cases, individual box columns built from 1/4" steel plates were severed.

You asked: "Which would take a greater impact force: a 1" thick reinforced concrete slab or a 1" steel plate?"

Apples and bananas.

You wrote: "You are trying to underestimate the steel columns by stating that they are 'hollow'. Do you realize that you can have them hollow because of their ability to withstand buckling. They hold up tons of mass."

First of all, the force lines associated with "holding up tons of mass" are different than lateral force lines, like that of a jet clipping into it. The design was for vertical loads. Certainly, lateral loads from (hurricane) winds were considered in the design, but such loads are not like the "point loads" of a jet impact.

Secondly, if you would give some weight to the actual words of the building designers, you would understand that the buildings acted exactly as they were designed. A jet impacting the towers was described as a pencil piercing a mosquito screen. Penetration.

You wrote: "So when a robustly built jet rams into this concrete wall, things get flung back, you would have similar effects if it was ramming into those steel columns."

You introduce confusion here. "This concrete wall" refers either (a) to your hypothetical a 1" thick reinforced concrete slab, or (b) to the concrete wall of the Sandia F4 test. Yet, likewise "ramming into those steel columns" could refer either (a) to your hypothetical 1" steel plate or (b) to the wall assemblies of the towers.

I'm going to go with (b) in both instances, in which case I have already explained the apple and banana differences in other comments. I'm sticking to those explanations that I'm not going to repeat but Ms. Rae should re-read.

You wrote: "The lack of it [plane parts getting flung back] indicates, planes did not hit the towers."

While you continue with your research into Newtonian physics, you need to consider the difference between an elastic collision, an inelastic collision, and combinations of the two.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html

Plane parts getting flung back views the collision as an elastic one. Yet, (a) the designed-in failure-points [bolts], (b) the mesh nature of the columns and zero-resistance window slits, and (c) the proclivity of aircraft materials [in the wings] to deform, be sliced, and get shattered: guarantees that it will be an inelastic collision.

I wrote earlier: "In order for the wings to get a deflection vector backwards (e.g., flung back), you can't have window slits offering zero resistance to the forward momentum over ~50% of the length of the wing."

Ms. Rae wrote: "That's false. The steel beams would have shredded the wings and tail fin."

It's not false. In case you didn't notice, the wings and tail fin were shredded (and shattered), and their momentum took their remnants into the towers. [And equal-and-opposite energies applied to the wall assemblies changed them from their prestine state.] As observed. The airplane parts did not get flung back. So what?

Yet you keep propping up the "lack of flung back airplane parts" as if it defies physics (as one pillar to the hologram theory). Well, its shredding and shattering into the towers does ~not~ defy physics, as already explained in this and other comments.

[And if this crumbling pillar didn't topple the hologram theory, the other fractured pillars of stark limitations in hologram technology -- from viewing angles to physical reflection, projection, and lens surfaces -- should have got it tipping. And this is before we consider that deceitful pillar of purposely misinterpreted radar data by Richard Hall.]

I wrote: "Do the math, Ms. Rae."

Ms. Rae replied: "No math necessary. A plane cannot disappear into a structural steel columns wall and concrete floors."

Spoken by someone who does not understand the importance or applicability of math on this situation. The recorded evidence contradicts your math-less beliefs.

I wrote: "The resolution per frame is vastly different between humans in a football game and a speeding aircraft. Slowing down the playback of the camera is not going to help."

Ms. Rae challenges: "How do you know what the resolution of the cameras were?"

I was referring to frame rate and its impact on frame-to-frame resolution. I know the resolution of the cameras in this aspect because (a) I looked up the standards for camera frame rates and (b) I did the math.

Specifically, most cameras use 24 frames per second. High-speed cameras use many more frames per second. I gave examples for what this frame means for objects going different speeds.

Object A: 10 [mph] = (10 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 14.6 [ft/sec]
Object B: 500 [mph] = (500 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 730 [ft/sec]

- A receiver running 10 mph for 10 yards (30 ft) for the first down would take ~2 seconds, or 48 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 30 feet would take 0.041 seconds, or 0.98 frames.
- A receiver running 10 mph for 200 ft would take ~13 seconds, or 312 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 200 feet (e.g., length of 767-400ER) would take 0.27 seconds, or 6.57 frames.

Stated another way, if both objects were going across the field of view of a standard camera (which were in use on 9/11),

- each frame of object A represents 0.625 ft of distance (frame-to-frame resolution).

- each frame of object B represents ~30 ft of distance (frame-to-frame resolution).

//

x182 Maxwell C. Bridges : there were no hot spots

2014-03-13

Dear Mr. Grage,

You wrote: "After review of the posts above, I don't find much to counter my understandinging there were no hot spots."

You must be a special kind of denier. Even Ron Morales on 9/11 Debates, an ardent believer in the perfection and infallibility of the government's version of events, was able to locate this reference from an official source.

"On September 11th, 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel and transformer oil stored in tanks underneath the WTC site ruptured and caught fire, creating a giant underground inferno beneath the pile on which the rescue workers toiled."

http://www.911healthnow.org/911healthnow/The_9_11_Health_Crisis_files/Environmental%20Exposures%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

For our purposes here, it is enough to point out to you that under-rubble hot-spots and "underground infernos" was enough of an anomaly that it could not be ignored everywhere.

Lest you be tempted to go with "diesel fuel and transformer oil" as the fuel source for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, I shred it here.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/02/neutron-nuclear-dew-at-facebook-911.html#x73

But don't take my word for it.

--- begin quote

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.

- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.

- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.

- Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and

- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles

From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials"

http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf

--- end quote

Mr. Grage, you seem to be a Dr. Wood supporter. Let's be clear that she does not specify the devices' serial numbers. Nor does she specify their model number. She doesn't even dive into publicly available literature on nuclear devices to shed light on their classifications and which ones fit her theories best. There is a huge gap between her dangling innuendo and something real-world operational.

For all who champion Dr. Wood, it was expected that you would stand on her work's shoulders and take it to the next level, get it closer to the DEW device's classification, its model number, and maybe even its serial number some day in an open and fair court that tries the perpetrators.

//

x183 Maxwell C. Bridges : inference is in error

2014-03-13

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard, Part 1/2.

You wrote: "And you inferred it was Silverstein who was behind it."

If you got this inference from me, it is in error. Silverstein was not behind it. He was in on it, and he profited from it. He had business and monetary motives to be involved. The conspiracy was larger, though. You really should read Kevin Ryan's book "Another 19".

You wrote: "The fact is the cost to fix would pale into insignificance compared to the revenue Silverstein could expect. It makes no sense on a financial level."

I disagree. The towers were under-occupied white elephants. It was losing tenants, not gaining them. The asbestos problem would always factor in to keep tenants away, and occupancy low. Plus the amount of time required to implement the asbestos fix factored heavily (negative) into the revenue that Silverstein could expect.

Here's how being part of 9/11 makes sense on the financial level. Silverstein pays nothing to completely wipe out his asbestos problems. He pays nothing to demolish the WTC. He doesn't even have the hassles of getting permits. Silverstein gets paid by insurance to build new buildings. So he doesn't pay anything there, either. He in fact makes a profit and establishes a good, clean, asbestos-free rental space to attract new (patriotic) tenants who will guarantee him a revenue stream going forward.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "... the return on the investment in this crime doesn't add up. Any insurance received would be far outweighed by the cost of delays due to rebuilding, delays due to the inevitable investigation. Not to mention the phenominal cost of funding this crime."

Misguided. Funding of this crime did not come from Silverstein, but probably from the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD spending.

I've already documented how for Silverstein this crime did and is paying off. Mr. Aveyard over-estimates the cost of delays due to rebuilding, etc.

As for the inevitable investigation? How's that going?

Mr. Aveyard continues: "You are also ignoring the fact of the risks associated with staging this hoax would be so of putting even someone as dumb George Bush could see it would never work."

The big lie worked for Hitler and his final solution. The terrorist-attack lie has been working for VP Cheney and all of the neo-con's who played dominant roles in the Bush Administration. Helped along by control of the courts and a complicit media.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "You cannot seriously believe that Silvetstein thought that a good way to make money would be to destroy the WTC thereby murdering thousands of innocent people, by staging a fake terrorist attack, involving hijacking passenger jets, planting nuclear devices."

Silverstein is your strawman. My premise is that the neo-cons in the Bush Administration were behind it. And yes, they thought it was a very good idea.

On the subject of "murdering thousands of innocent people", this number itself might be a tad inflated. Some valid evidence of simVictims on 9/11 does exist, and was even recommended in the 1960's Operation Northwoods document.

Be that as it may, when the nation -- and presumably the Bush Administration -- believed that Iraq had chemical WMD, they were willing to march our amassed forces into the thick of it, potentially causing many times the 9/11 casualty rate. The US death count from Afghanistan and Iraq is already twice the 9/11 casualty rate. Let's ignore those who were injured and maimed, but let's ~not~ ignore the millions who died on the other side. The point is: the murderous intent was there and has been acted on. If the number was truly 3,000 (which I doubt), it was a small sacrifice and even a "Pearl Harbor" planned sacrifice in order to rapidly achieve the goals of their [PNAC's] "Rebuilding America's Defenses" manifesto.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Bribing people or stealing these devices and some how planting them. And coming up with this plan and executing it within a few months. Don't forget they only acquired the building in 2000."

Another strawman. They were planning this well before 2000. A relative of President Bush was on the Board of Directors of the company that worked security at the towers. The chapter on L. Paul Bremer in Kevin Ryan's book "Another 19" is fascinating. Pay attention to what his job was pre-9/11, on 9/11, and post-9/11, and also where his offices were on 9/11. I don't want to spoil it for you. Needless to say, access to the buildings -- even secure WTC-7 -- was not an issue.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Whilst you may have a scientific basis for how the building could have been demolished, the means and motive are totally irrational."

You make me laugh, Mr. Aveyard. Money (via laundering, war-profiteering, insurance settlements, gold heist, spoiled SEC investigations, missing $2.3 trillion, etc.), flexing military might through out the world, and forcefully acquiring control of energy sources all seem like highly rational motives to those who play chess on the world theatre. As for the nuclear means, we've had several generations of generals and majors leaders of the military industrial complex with itchy trigger fingers literally dying to use some of the weapons in our arsenal. I say the 3,000 victim number is inflated (refer to Let's Roll Forum and September Clues -- both with disinformation), but was deemed a "Pearl Harbor" threshold required to get the nation to become patriotic and unquestion the agenda.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "... it remains that no one ever saw one of these devices you speak of our anything in the building that looked strange."

You know, many victims at Afghanistan weddings never saw the Predator drone that fired its missile on them, either.

Gut a Coke machine so that it can transport all or some of the components of the nuclear devices that I'm talking about. They could wheel these things in from the under-ground loading docks to the freight elevators in broad daylight, and few would ever question it. And this is but one hypothetical examples. More realistic are the reports of workers coming into the towers after cleaning crews in the middle of the morning.

end of part 1/2
//

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard, Part 2/2.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "You have not a scrap of evidence that these things ever existed only your thought that they could have."

No, not my thought alone. For your reading pleasure:
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

Mr. Aveyard continues: "... the fact is that so far your theory has zero evidence to support it..."

Au contraire, Mr. Aveyard. Uranium and correlated elements in the dust spelling out nuclear hijinx; tritium, tritium, tritium; delays in radiation measurements and stilted sampling of radiation; energy of pulverization combined with destruction at gravitational acceleration; the relative quiet decibel levels; and lots of anomalous evidence, much of it documented in Dr. Wood's book, about torched vehicles and whatnot that the official story can ~not~ even mention, let alone attempt to explain.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "... and when we examine the rationale of this method it fails."

You haven't truly examined the rationale of this method, so your hypnotic conclusion is just wishful thinking.

Mr. Aveyard concludes with hypnotic suggestion: "It's time to give up on this idea."

*Snap of the fingers*

The spell is broken.

The time to earnestly consider nuclear means put into use on 9/11 has come. Mr. Aveyard's lame efforts only under-scores the fact that the cover-up is still going strong.

end of part 2/2
//

x184 Maxwell C. Bridges : based on fission or fussion

2013-03-13

Ms. Rae asked: "Is your theory based on fission or fussion?"

All three; you forgot neutron [and so did Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood in their no-nukes duck-and-weave.]

Neutron devices are based on fusion, but in order to get the high temperatures required for fusion, the devices are often fission-triggerd. The dust reveals evidence of fission. But a solely fission process leaves too much radioactivity. Fusion does not leave large levels of lingering radiation, but both fusion and fission are way too energetic to match the observed evidence.

A neutron device leaves even less radiation. It expels a whole bunch of neutron radiation. If this is targeted upwards, the neutron radiation doesn't affect collateral life-forms or tandem nuclear devices underneath. Moreover, this expellation of neutrons reduces other output yields.

Ms. Rae asked: "How does your current theory differ from your original theory."

My previous theory was for neutron nuclear DEW. It said that the neutron devices were configured to aim upwards the escaping highly energetic neutrons. Because most of the energy was released as these neutrons, other yields of the device (heat, blast, EMP) would be reduced to tactical levels.

My current theorgy takes the neutron nuclear DEW yet another step forward. If the device were further refined (ala Project Excalibur, x-ray lasers), they could further rob from certain yields (heat, blast) while enhancing energy output at certain wavelengths that could be aimed as well. If those wavelengths were on the order of atomic distances, I speculate in a very wild and bat-shit crazy fashion that this might lead to "molecular disassociation" as described by Dr. Wood and the Hutchison effect and that they seem to believe is present in some of the debris.

Ms. Rae asked: "How did you arrive at 6 to 12 devices per tower?"

The towers took ~10 seconds to hit the ground. Witnesses said repeatedly that they heard "boom-boom-boom...", which in other words was at a tempo that the detonations could be counted.

Furthermore, the instance of the leaning upper 30-stories and how its angular momentum was arrested is a further indication of the relative destruction cone range of a single device. Those upper stories accordion-ed in on themselves before the lowest edge of that "block" progressed, say, 10 stories below the impact (or collapse initiation) level.

David Chandler once calculated that the roof line of these upper stories fell at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity. Thus, the structure within those stories had its strength suddenly cut down to 1/3 of what it was.

Yet the destructive cone of the device did not pierce the roof that we could see, other than the instance where the antenna seemed to have lost all support from underneath it and was sinking into the upper portion of the tower.

Thus, if one device can clear about 20 levels, the math over the remaining 90 floors suggests that 6 perfectly functioning devices according to plan could take the tower down to the ground level. But nukes are known for emitting radiation that can foil neighboring nukes. Redundancies would be needed, as well as possibly alternating which side of the inner-core structure (that became the spire) that the devices are mounted on. The boom-count bumps the number of devices per tower up to 12.

The firemen who survived in the stairwell may have done so because the device closest to them failed.

Ms. Rae writes: "you might want to learn the art of briefly summarizing your explanations. We learned to do that in school. ;)"

Ms. Rae, you might want to learn the art of READING things that are long and difficult. We learned to do that in school.

Also, you might want to learn the art of EDITING your comments. No reason in the world that all four of your last comments could not have been edited into the first comment.

Instead, each of your comments generates an email that truly does act like SPAM to my email inbox, because I have Facebook notifications turned on. Your individual twitter-style comments unfairly PUSH my comments out of view when Facebook inserts its "View more comments" compression. You make yourself look like a shoot-from-the-hip ditz in firing off those questions in a short period of time. It is not a race to post comments.

We learned in school how to contemplate what we were going to write, and to edit, edit, edit to make the point well. Authoring off-line would serve you well. You get the added bonus of being able to save off-line and then re-use/re-purpose elsewhere... like blogs or places where they don't quickly disappear.

Nothing about your comments reflects such deliberation. In fact, your asking those questions (again) about things that I have already answered several times and provided links to the answers several more is rather troublesome. I seem to be getting a similar carousel ride from you regarding the physics of an airplane and other evidence suggesting a real aircraft (but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft), whose underlying purpose is to steer towards holograms...

I tire of such games and carousel spinning.

The problem isn't with me. The problem is that Ms. Rae doesn't read. And she's already admitted (in another thread) "no math is necessary" to explain physical phenomenon, when clearly it greatly helps with the prediction over and above "gut feelings."

//

x185 Maxwell C. Bridges : choose to say the evidence was manipulated

2014-03-13

Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "As for what you say about the NASA pictures, perhaps you are right. Maybe they have been manipulated. I do not believe Dr Wood could present them as evidence in court, however, if they were in any way found to be not an 'accurate depiction of what they purport to show' - to use the legal language."

When they got to court, if the thermal images would have been studied for tampering (which they weren't) and if someone questioned their validity (and no one was), it would ~not~ have been as bad for Dr. Wood as you surmise. She re-purposed them from the USGS Spectroscopy Report, and her due-diligence in referencing where various pieces of evidence came from would have saved her. The USGS would have been on the hook.

I wrote: "The thermal imaging report is ripe for having been manipulated."

Ms. Rae responded: "I guess when the evidence goes against your theory, you choose to say the evidence was manipulated."

Ms. Rae, the evidence comes from a government report. With regards to 9/11, I defy you to point out a single government report that doesn't have major issues which call into question the veracity and validity of its conclusions.

It should be a red-flag when such reports are accepted into evidence unchallenged.

So what are you going to believe?

[1] Even those who support the official story have had to dig deep in order to attribute the long-lasting under-rubble fires to diesel fuel (but they failed, and the math bears this out.)

[2] One of the reasons that nano-thermite has gotten such a long run is that its reaction with steel doesn't require oxygen from the air. (Of course, the math also proves that this can't explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.)

[3] Tons of first responders and clean-up workers have testified to the nature and existance of hot-spots.

We know they were there.

Yet the USGS Spectroscopy Report comes out and with one single image, they try to shoot down speculation into the long-lasting hot-spots by saying they weren't so long-lasting. How hard would it be to juke that image? Could be as easy as inserting an image from October 23 or November 23, but purposely mis-labeling it "September 23."

//

x186 Maxwell C. Bridges : understanding of Newtonian physics seems to max-out

2014-03-13

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

Your understanding of Newtonian physics seems to max-out at collisions that have velocities under 100 mph. You keep applying those simple outcomes (e.g., wings would bounce off the building) to situations that are vastly different. You fail to grasp how outcomes change when velocities are very large (e.g., 500 mph).

At those velocities, the energies involved (velocity-squared) are on the order of what it takes to overcome the static structural energies of the materials in question.

Whereas deceleration and deformation are common for velocities under 100 mph, when the velocities are large, deceleration and deformation doesn't happen at the "wing-level", but happens suddenly at micro-levels within the wing, with the observed outcome being the shattering of materials (applicable to both wing and box columns). It is fully compliant with Newton's Laws.

If you don't have a high speed camera, you can't see this. And slowing down the footage of a camera capturing 24-frames/second is insufficient to capture all that is going on.

You keep posting images from the Sandia F4 test. In many ways, the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video is more applicable to the 9/11 planes than the Sandia test is. In that video, they launch a wedge at a car. One could think of the wedge as a box column of the towers, and the car as the wing of the 9/11 aircraft. The results are that the car (wing) gets sliced while at the same time the wedge gets splattered into hundreds of pieces.

Something you'll notice is that the car moves from a stationary position and in the direction the rocket wedge was traveling. In the 9/11 paradigm, this can be though of as the wing decelerating. Were it not for the barrier behind the experiment, remnants of the rocket wedge would have gone further than any piece of the sliced car. The point is, your "fling back" theory applied to this experiment would have had pieces of the car -- like the entire hood -- bouncing off of the rocket wedge and flying much further in the direction the rocket had been traveling. The reality is that the hood was sliced in two and was displaced not that far from where it was.

Applying back to 9/11, just as the car was sliced and shattered, wings of the aircraft were sliced and shattered. The car, hood, or top weren't bounced, just as the wings weren't bounce. Also, equal-and-opposite, just as the car shattered the steel wedge, the wings of a plane in cases had the energy to slice 1/4" steel used in the box columns, when it didn't severe bolts, push wall assemblies, and bend individual columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

The Sandia and Mythbuster videos should be giving you "ah-ha" moments.

By the way, the second video is about a rocket-sled into a car. It is similar to the Sandia test. This would be the outcome if the wall assemblies had no window gaps (offering zero resistance) for the material to go through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

//

x187 Maxwell C. Bridges : reverse the roles

2014-03-14

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

You write: "Now reverse the roles and send the car flying at that speed and ram it into the steel plate. What do you think the results will be? A) The car still get smashed or B) the car will slice through the steel plate."

You continued: "You seem to fail to understand that it's not the one that is traveling that will do the damage. If you reverse the roles, you will have the same outcome. the steel plate represents the steel columns. The car represent the plane. That is the point you are failing to understand."

There was no failure to understand on my part, which is the very reason I brought up the Mythbuster rocket-plow video (for you to understand). I knew that role reversal would produce similar outcomes, and that this was applicable to the 9/11 planes at the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

Let's be clear what we are talking about. In the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video, they had a solid steel beam (but wedge-shaped and in an assembly) rocketed at a stationary car. The wedge decelerated as it sliced the car and was broken into pieces.

If we say X1 was the velocity along the positive x-axis, the y-axis is left or right, and the z-axis is up or down, this could be represented as the vector V1(X1,Y1=0,Z1=0). After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0. In other words in this experiment to the best of my observation skills, no pieces of wedge or car bounced in the negative x direction during the first impact. Part of the reason for this is that the car was resting on blocks and was not bolted to them. [Behind the car a short distance was a dirt backstop to the experiment. Some pieces of debris had a second impact with this solid backstop and then did bounce in the negative x direction.]

When we reverse the actors to have the car rocket towards the solid steel beam (wedge assembly), the results are going to be similar. The car is going to decelerate some as it split itself at the wedge while the wedge gets broken into pieces. After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where it is expected that X1>Xn>0. Like the previous example of a free-standing car, it is assumed that the wedge assembly is also free-standing and can be pushed backwards. If the wedge assembly is bolted down or resting against that backstop, some bounce shards (e.g., X1>0>Xn) are possible.

It is instructive to note (in the original and reversal) that nothing inhibits the car's pieces from maintaining a positive Xn component in its post-impact vector. This differs from the Sandia F4 crash and the 2nd Mythbuster video (Rocket-Sled Destroys Car) in this regard due to the concrete wall or backstop.

++++

Let's relate this to 9/11.

[A] It is observed that few pieces -- certainly not major chunks of wing or tail fin -- bounce off of the steel wall assemblies. Due to the window gaps of the wall assemblies, the box columns acted like the rocket-wedge in slicing and shattering the wings into pieces that obtained a post-impact vector Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0 [into the building].

[B] Close inspection of the wall assembly where the wing hit (but not at engines) show (1) instances where wall assemblies were separated from neighboring assemblies at bolted junctions and pushed, (2) instances where box columns of an assembly were bent, and (3) instances where the box column was cut. Given is that the energy to achieve #1 or #2 is less than what is required for #3. However, just like the rocket-wedge was broken into pieces in the Mythbuster video even while slicing the car, it is remains within the realm of possibilities for the wings to achieve #3.

Those who make the no-planes argument at the WTC say that [A] no bounced wing pieces and [B] slicing 14"x14" box columns of 1/4" thick steel are not compliant with physics.

I disagree, and so does the applicable aspects of the Mythbuster's experiments.

Furthermore, seismic data noted something at the time of impact that they've attributed to the impact. Furthermore, two sets of radar data from two different systems are in agreement (within their tolerance limits), and radar pings only happen off of solid objects. The radar data agrees with 3D modeling of flight paths captured on camera. Furthermore, projectiles were observed flying out of the tower after impact, were tracked bouncing off another building, and came to rest on another street. They were determined to be an engine and a wheel assembly [but not necessarily from the alleged commercial plane.] Furthermore, holograms have technical limitations that would be impossible to overcome from all viewing/recording perspectives and at the scale required.

What pillar is left to hold up the no-plane argument [at the WTC]?

//

x188 Maxwell C. Bridges : Re-Posting of Material from other threads

2014-03-14

Part 1/2 Re-Posting of Material from other threads

The following isn't necessarily where I'm at now in my discussion with Ms. Rae, but documents where we were at so another thread could be cleaned up.

Dear Ms. Rae {posted 2014-03-11},

You wrote: "Even a drone or fighter jet would have exploded on contact with the perimeter structural steel columns."

No it wouldn't. In order to explode, it would have to have something explosive. The jet fuel didn't become a fire ball until it had separated from the wings and then reached by an ignition source. The fuselage had already severed bolts and pushed wall assemblies before the wings with fuel hit.

The outer wall assemblies -- the perimeter structural steel columns -- did not constitute a gapless, solid wall as depicted in your images that re-purposes things from the Sandia F4 test and various missile tests.

Ms. Rae wrote: "That engine on Murray & Church was planted there."

This isn't a fact. It is your concluding opinion, which comes about after side-stepping much evidence that proves it could have landed there.

Click on the photo album and view all images, not just the thumbnails that appears at this top link.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1423831401195173/

Ms. Rae wrote: "It is sitting under the scaffolding in an upright position."

So? Take a beer can, put some sand in it, toss it in the air, see how it lands. (Vary the tosses so some end-over-end come into play, or also that it might hit something on the way down, or that the toss had forward momentum, or that a curb would assist in uprighting it.) Sure, most of the time it will not come to rest upright. But there will be instances in your test set when it does come to rest upright.

Ms. Rae wrote: "There is no evidence of any crash physics with that location."

Would you know what the evidence looked like? How much of a dent in the pavement or crack in the concrete do you expect? How can you say that such damage wasn't there?

The engine itself looked pretty dinged up to me. It certainly wasn't going to be re-furbished and put back into service.

Ms. Rae wrote: "That 'engine' crashed somewhere else and was placed there. ... That engine on Murray & Church was planted there."

I'll use the same argument that I used against the September Clues Crew who were promoting that false meme "all video imagery was tainted." If they were going to go to the effort of faking all of the video imagery (or of planting an engine), then why didn't they do it right? Meaning, if the videos were faked, why not make them physics-compliant? Meaning, if the engine was planted, why didn't they plant one of the same make and model of the alleged aircraft?

//

Dear Ms. Rae {posted 2014-03-11},

You write: "The wings upon impact with the perimeter steel columns would have been sufficient for the explosion."

Why would they explode? What conditions are required for jet fuel to explode? Jet fuel is not as volatile as gasoline. Jet fuel has more in common with home heating oil than, say premium gasoline. It's similar to kerosene in density, viscosity and volatility. It ignites at a higher temperature than gasoline and releases fewer fumes.

When the wings of the aircraft sliced into and were sliced by the box columns of the wall assemblies, the jet fuel previously contained therein took the path of least resistance and continued largely in the direction of its momentum prior to impact. In other words, the fuel entered the towers.

The ignition source for hard-to-ignite jet / diesel fuel was likely the hot exhaust of the jet engines when they finally entered the towers. This is why the explosion was not on impact but after much of the plane had penetrated the towers.

Ms. Rae writes: "Try ramming your car against this [wall assembly] and tell me it wont explode."

Apple-and-oranges. My engine is in the front of my car, while the aircraft's engines were out to the sides and set back about half the length of the fuselage. My engine uses highly volatile gasoline, while the aircraft uses jet fuel. My car would be lucky to reach speeds 1/3 that of the aircraft, which is a significant reduction in the available energy to shatter the materials of the car or slice into columns.

// end of part 1/2

+++++

Part 2/2 Posting of material from other threads

Dear Ms. Norma Rae {posted 2014-03-13},

Your understanding of Newtonian physics seems to max-out at collisions that have velocities under 100 mph. You keep applying those simple outcomes (e.g., wings would bounce off the building) to situations that are vastly different. You fail to grasp how outcomes change when velocities are very large (e.g., 500 mph).

At those velocities, the energies involved (velocity-squared) are on the order of what it takes to overcome the static structural energies of the materials in question.

Whereas deceleration and deformation are common for velocities under 100 mph, when the velocities are large, deceleration and deformation doesn't happen at the "wing-level", but happens suddenly at micro-levels within the wing, with the observed outcome being the shattering of materials (applicable to both wing and box columns). It is fully compliant with Newton's Laws.

If you don't have a high speed camera, you can't see this. And slowing down the footage of a camera capturing 24-frames/second is insufficient to capture all that is going on.

You keep posting images from the Sandia F4 test. In many ways, the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video is more applicable to the 9/11 planes than the Sandia test is. In that video, they launch a wedge at a car. One could think of the wedge as a box column of the towers, and the car as the wing of the 9/11 aircraft. The results are that the car (wing) gets sliced while at the same time the wedge gets splattered into hundreds of pieces.

Something you'll notice is that the car moves from a stationary position and in the direction the rocket wedge was traveling. In the 9/11 paradigm, this can be though of as the wing decelerating. Were it not for the barrier behind the experiment, remnants of the rocket wedge would have gone further than any piece of the sliced car. The point is, your "fling back" theory applied to this experiment would have had pieces of the car -- like the entire hood -- bouncing off of the rocket wedge and flying much further in the direction the rocket had been traveling. The reality is that the hood was sliced in two and was displaced not that far from where it was.

Applying back to 9/11, just as the car was sliced and shattered, wings of the aircraft were sliced and shattered. The car, hood, or top weren't bounced, just as the wings weren't bounce. Also, equal-and-opposite, just as the car shattered the steel wedge, the wings of a plane in cases had the energy to slice 1/4" steel used in the box columns, when it didn't severe bolts, push wall assemblies, and bend individual columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

The Sandia and Mythbuster videos should be giving you "ah-ha" moments.

By the way, the second video is about a rocket-sled into a car. It is similar to the Sandia test. This would be the outcome if the wall assemblies had no window gaps (offering zero resistance) for the material to go through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

//

Dear Ms. Norma Rae {posted 2014-03-14},

You write: "Now reverse the roles and send the car flying at that speed and ram it into the steel plate. What do you think the results will be? A) The car still get smashed or B) the car will slice through the steel plate."

You continued: "You seem to fail to understand that it's not the one that is traveling that will do the damage. If you reverse the roles, you will have the same outcome. the steel plate represents the steel columns. The car represent the plane. That is the point you are failing to understand."

There was no failure to understand on my part, which is the very reason I brought up the Mythbuster rocket-plow video (for you to understand). I knew that role reversal would produce similar outcomes, and that this was applicable to the 9/11 planes at the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

Let's be clear what we are talking about. In the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video, they had a solid steel beam (but wedge-shaped and in an assembly) rocketed at a stationary car. The wedge decelerated as it sliced the car and was broken into pieces.

If we say X1 was the velocity along the positive x-axis, the y-axis is left or right, and the z-axis is up or down, this could be represented as the vector V1(X1,Y1=0,Z1=0). After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0. In other words in this experiment to the best of my observation skills, no pieces of wedge or car bounced in the negative x direction during the first impact. Part of the reason for this is that the car was resting on blocks and was not bolted to them. [Behind the car a short distance was a dirt backstop to the experiment. Some pieces of debris had a second impact with this solid backstop and then did bounce in the negative x direction.]

When we reverse the actors to have the car rocket towards the solid steel beam (wedge assembly), the results are going to be similar. The car is going to decelerate some as it split itself at the wedge while the wedge gets broken into pieces. After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where it is expected that X1>Xn>0. Like the previous example of a free-standing car, it is assumed that the wedge assembly is also free-standing and can be pushed backwards. If the wedge assembly is bolted down or resting against that backstop, some bounce shards (e.g., X1>0>Xn) are possible.

It is instructive to note (in the original and reversal) that nothing inhibits the car's pieces from maintaining a positive Xn component in its post-impact vector. This differs from the Sandia F4 crash and the 2nd Mythbuster video (Rocket-Sled Destroys Car) in this regard due to the concrete wall or backstop.

++++

Let's relate this to 9/11.

[A] It is observed that few pieces -- certainly not major chunks of wing or tail fin -- bounce off of the steel wall assemblies. Due to the window gaps of the wall assemblies, the box columns acted like the rocket-wedge in slicing and shattering the wings into pieces that obtained a post-impact vector Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0 [into the building].

[B] Close inspection of the wall assembly where the wing hit (but not at engines) show (1) instances where wall assemblies were separated from neighboring assemblies at bolted junctions and pushed, (2) instances where box columns of an assembly were bent, and (3) instances where the box column was cut. Given is that the energy to achieve #1 or #2 is less than what is required for #3. However, just like the rocket-wedge was broken into pieces in the Mythbuster video even while slicing the car, it is remains within the realm of possibilities for the wings to achieve #3.

Those who make the no-planes argument at the WTC say that [A] no bounced wing pieces and [B] slicing 14"x14" box columns of 1/4" thick steel are not compliant with physics.

I disagree, and so does the applicable aspects of the Mythbuster's experiments.

Furthermore, seismic data noted something at the time of impact that they've attributed to the impact. Furthermore, two sets of radar data from two different systems are in agreement (within their tolerance limits), and radar pings only happen off of solid objects. The radar data agrees with 3D modeling of flight paths captured on camera. Furthermore, projectiles were observed flying out of the tower after impact, were tracked bouncing off another building, and came to rest on another street. They were determined to be an engine and a wheel assembly [but not necessarily from the alleged commercial plane.] Furthermore, holograms have technical limitations that would be impossible to overcome from all viewing/recording perspectives and at the scale required.

What pillar is left to hold up the no-plane argument [at the WTC]?

// End of Part 2/2

x189 Maxwell C. Bridges : you were once a 'no planer'

2014-03-14

Dear Mr. Ronald Stacker,

You wrote: "[Y]ou're on record saying that you were once a 'no planer'. Could you provide links to some of your past writings, in regards to this? I'm curious as to what evidence allowed you to conclude that there were no planes."

Sure, here's a good article that I no longer hold to. Shows evolution in thought and that I'm a rational person who is willing to change my views when new information comes to light.

"I'm a no-planer."
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-no-planer.html

I was mesmurmized by September Clues, even though I knew it was so crafty and clever that I was somehow being duped. I always championed it in a back-handed manner, not believing everything but hoping for some nuggets of truth. The reasoning, logic, and antics of those on the Clues Forum certainly did not give me confidence that their overly broad conclusions were valid.

My main motivation both for back-handedly championing September Clues, Dr. Wood, and the Anonymous Physicist were for the public (the forum) to fairly and objectively consider individual pieces of evidence (nuggets of truth) contained within those works, because the trend that I had noticed was for closed-minded thinkers to find small issues with the work, to label thus the work as "looney" or "disinfo", and then to dismiss the work in its entirety.

The key piece of evidence that turned my tide was the 3D modeling of various flight paths taken from different perspectives that showed them in agreement with one another and within the tolerances of two different sets of radar data. September Clues had label such perspectives "the dive bomber", "the level flight", "the up-swoop". With 20/20 hindsight, they were grossly mis-interpreting the effects of camera perspective.

Moreover, when I wrote about collision physics, I was suffering at the time from the same misperception that I attribute to Ms. Norma Rae today. Namely, most of my college physics dealt with comparatively low velocities and perfect situations with regards to the reaction of materials in the objects.

So between the Sandia F4-into-concrete-wall video and the Mythbuster's Rocket-Snowplow video, the errors in my physics dawned on me when velocities became very large. The energies at 500 mph inact deceleration and deformation much quicker in more localized areas first causing shattering of materials before (or instead of) deceleration and deformation of the object as a whole.

You may find these other articles of interest. Because they were over 1-1/2 years ago, it gives some indication why my patience on these themes is so short.

"More Absurd 9/11 Holograms"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-absurd.html

"Contrived 9/11 Holograms with Radar"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/08/contrived.html

//

x190 Maxwell C. Bridges : Engine Out of Towers

2014-03-14

North Tower

South

++++++++++

x191 Maxwell C. Bridges : rather muddled stop the PsyOp

2014-03-15

Dear Mr. Grage,

I'm sorry, but your last comment was rather muddled. I apologize in advance, therefore, if I've read too much or too little into your writing.

Mr. Grage wrote: "I'll stop the PsyOp right where you have penetration at first perimeter wall."

How? Are you saying that an engine could not pierce the first perimeter wall, cross an essentially empty (or not very resistive) open floor, exit through a corner that had no beams to resist, and fly a parabolic curve to bounce off of one building before hitting the street and rolling under the scaffolding? I don't rule it out.

Mr. Grage continued: "Track a trajectory to where the wrong engine was planted."

Let's dissect this. "Track a trajectory." Are we in agreement that something large and trailing smoke was ejected from the towers within moments of the explosion? We ought to be. What was it, where did it go exactly, and what was found where it landed?

"The wrong engine." We seem to be in agreement that the engine under the scaffolding did not match the make and model of the engines on the alleged commercial aircraft. Not a problem for me, because I've been saying since I entered FB that the aircraft was not the alleged commercial plane. My reasoning was that it flew too fast at low altitude with exceptional accuracy. [And not being the alleged commercial plane and having enhancements to at least the engines, all bets are off with regards to what other enhancements it may have had, such as the materials and strength of its wings.]

Expanding the phrase above to "the wrong engine was planted" is where your logic fails. If the culprits knew what type of commercial plane was going to be scapegoated, if they knew that they would have to go to the effort of planting a banged up and still smoking engine, then we could reason that they would be smart enough to plant an engine of the proper make and model, particularly if they knew that it was going to be paraded befor the world as evidence. And your supposition into coordination of the ruse doesn't take into account the planning required to get something large and trailing smoke to rocket out of the towers at the time of explosion. [I repeat: What was it, where did it go exactly, and what was found where it landed?]

Mr. Grage wrote: "You're smart enough to know better. Are you playing us?"

Indeed, I am smart enough to know better than to swallow the weak premise of no planes that you are playing us at. Which would be easier to implement?

[A] Take a plane of similar (but not exact) make and model of the commercial aircraft to be scapegoated, paint it as a commercial aircraft, swap it at some point during a transponder-less flight with the alleged commercial aircraft, fly it fast and accurately into the towers, and then have an unforeseen event like its (wrong) engine slip out of the towers trailing smoke and land as damning evidence of the ruse nearby.

Or.

[B] Holograms? Cloaked planes? Launching a smoking projectile? Ignoring the projectile and planting a banged up engine -- the wrong one at that -- somewhere along the projectile's path.

When I see holo-Santa and holo-Elvis at the local mall without tell-tale limitations (like glass for it to be projected on) and convincing from all angles and perspectives, then maybe you'll have half a chance of duping me into your premise. Likewise, when cloaking is convincing from all angles and perspectives.

Meanwhile, Mr. Grage, it is well that you bring up "PsyOp" and "playing us".

//

x192 Maxwell C. Bridges : could have exited the corner

2014-03-15

Dear Ms. Rae,

You wrote: "An engine could not have exited through the corner. It would have to have squeezed through the opening."

Indeed the image you posted shows a vertical beam in the corner.

But now go to the first in the series of images that I posted from Yesterday at 12:19pm. Click on it so that you can see a bigger image.

Already marked with red arrows are corner's that don't have that vertical beam, about every other floor didn't have a vertical beam.

Thus we see that an engine could have exited the corner and could have squeezed through the opening.

//

++++

Dear Ms. Rae,

Four images ago (including my repeat), the image had two call-outs in red. The top one says: "The steel beam is still hanging there, so it could not have squeezed through this whole."

The bottom call-out says: "This hole is barely exposed."

The bottom call-out is wrong in its analysis. The bottom window is the one that did not have a vertical steel beam in the middle.

More importantly, the junk that blocks the hole probably came from other portions of the aircraft and jammed up the hole ~after~ the remnants of the engine and severed landing wheel assembly rocketed out.

Two images ago (A), your cyan circle is of a building that is marked correctly in cyan in B (one image ago.) It is impossible to tell in A based on the camera perspective whether the smoking object flying above Church street was captured as it crossed the red line at the cyan cirle (in B) or was already one or more blocks down Church closer to Murray.

[A]

[B]

I am inclined to believe in A that the object trailing smoke was closer to the camera (and closer to Murray) than the building circled in cyan in both images.

Ergo, I remain convinced of a real aircraft and the possibility of its engine and wheel going the distances, as video taped and as found at Church and Murray.

//

Dear Ms. Rae,

You asked: "Do you want to go on record saying that you believe that engine on Murray & Church flew out of the twin tower and traveled approximately 4 football fields and landed in an upright position?"

Yes.

Before I explain why this is believable to me (based on boring physics), let me offer one bit of unsubstantiated speculation. It is within the realm of probability that the heavy engine could have bounced and teetered to its upright final position under the scaffolding. But it also wouldn't surprise me if agents on clean-up duty dragged it from a more conspicuous location (like in the middle of the street) to a spot under the scaffolding in preparation to dispose of it, but they failed before it was spotted and pictures taken. The engine, not being of the same make and model of the alleged commercial aircraft, escaping from the towers ~not~ according to plan would have been something to dispose of.

By the way, your compass picture needs an additional line. You have a red line at 90 degrees and a second at 45 degrees coming out of the corner of WTC-2.

The missing line would be the trajectory of the plane into WTC-2. Because the engine bounced off of a building in the block labeled 45 Park Place, a line from there to the WTC-2 corner could be drawn and would probably be found as coincident with the line extension of the trajectory into the WTC-2.

Within the image is a note about how the engine was found approximately 1400 ft away (and a football field is only 360 feet long).

Physics proves that an object with an initial velocity as slow as 122 mph, starting from a height of 975 ft (height of plane impact on WTC-2), and falling due to the force of gravity, would travel the requisite 1,400 ft.

In summary, an engine flying off of the plane through the towers and landing near Church and Murray -- as observed -- remains believable, and therefore the engine was not planted.

+++ boring details

Change to common units.
1 [mph] * {5280 [ft/mile]} / {(3600 [sec/hr]} = 1.47 [ft/sec]

100 [mph] = 147 [ft/sec]
150 [mph] = 220 [ft/sec]
200 [mph] = 294 [ft/sec]

Determine height of plane impact:
WTC tower height = ~1340 ft
# floors = 110
height per floor = 1340/110 = ~12.18 ft

"impact hole that extended from the 78th to 84th floors."
80 floors = (12.18 [ft/floor]) * 80 [floors] = ~975 ft

How long does it take an object to fall 975 ft under the force of gravity?

gravity = g = 32 [ft/sec^2]
d = (1/2)*g(t^2)
t = sqr(2d/g)
time to fall 975 ft = sqr((2*975 [ft])/32 [ft/sec^2])
t(975) = 7.8 seconds

How far can an object travel in 7.8 seconds with a given initial velocity in parenthesis and in mph?

d(100) = 1,147 ft
d(150) = 1,720 ft
d(200) = 2,294 ft

Given a distance flown of 1,400 feet, determine its initial velocity:

d(x) = 1,400 ft = (y [ft/sec] * (7.8 [sec])
y = 1400 [ft] / 7.8 [sec] = 179.3 [ft/sec]
x mph = (179.3 [ft/sec] / (1.47 [ft/sec])) [miles/hour]
d(122 mph) = 1,400 ft

An object with an initial velocity as slow as 122 mph, starting from a height of 975 ft (height of plane impact on WTC-2), and falling due to the force of gravity, would travel 1,400 ft in the 7.8 seconds it takes to fall to the ground.

//

x193 FB Participants ATW : trajectory of a plane is moot

2014-03-16

2014-03-16

Norma Rae
The line showing a trajectory of a plane is moot since there was no plane. We can only go with the evidence and the exit holes. So the corner trajectory as shown in videos exits at a 45 degree angle. The other trajectory goes straight out. These are the two trajectories based on the exiting debris.

Why would an engine leave such a distinct white trail that only missiles/rockets leave behind? Google burning object white trail trajectory

Michael Arnold 10:34pm Mar 15
Maxwell: I've been reading the comments. It's been a very interesting discussion. I have a question or two for you, if you don't mind. You stated that the engine might have been moved to under the scaffolding and a photo taken before it could be removed altogether. But wouldn't the engine falling from 975 ft. have caused a big crater in the ground? Also, since it was 1,400 ft away from the South Tower, I am not aware of the extent that the area was cleared of people leaving the area of the North Tower i.e., were there no people in the area to witness the engine crashing to the ground? I realize there was pandemonium that day, but at that point, in the moments before FL 175 crashed int WTC2, the only incident was the first crash, so there might have been people walking in that area. You might not know the answer to the second question.

2014-03-16

Peter Aveyard 5:42am Mar 16
Maxwell Bridges
First of all, my apologies for the delay. I have been somewhat distracted dealing with other posts from people who seem all too willing to accept a conclusion without questioning the evidence because it fits with what they want to believe.

Anyway, back to your theory. So it seems that the only tangible evidence you have to support your DEW theory is the presence of depleted uranium.

Refresh my memory, who said there was uranium at ground zero?

Who did the analysis?

How much was there?

x194 Maxwell C. Bridges : a big crater in the ground

2014-03-16

+++ 2014-03-16

Dear Mr. Michael Arnold,

You wrote that I had stated that "the engine might have been moved to under the scaffolding and a photo taken before it could be removed altogether."

Let me repeat that this is unfounded, unsubstantiated speculation on my part.

Mr. Arnold continued: "But wouldn't the engine falling from 975 ft. have caused a big crater in the ground?"

In total the engine fell 975 vertical feet, but if you were following the pictures, it bounced off of another building first, which absorbed much energy.

But to your point, falling the remaining distance from that other building would have left some damage on the ground. Maybe it was the cause of the concrete curb damage.

Mr. Arnold continued: "Also, since it was 1,400 ft away from the South Tower, I am not aware of the extent that the area was cleared of people leaving the area of the North Tower i.e., were there no people in the area to witness the engine crashing to the ground?"

I don't know, but sounds like a good research project for you.

//

+++ 2014-03-16

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

You write so confidently: "The line showing a trajectory of a plane is moot since there was no plane."

Poppycock. Two separate radar systems, forty-four independent video recordings from different perspectives, plus scores of eye-witness testimony disagree with your "no plane" contention, as does the smoking engine from an aircraft that has been traced to its resting position 1400 feet (or almost 4 football fields) away and proven by physics that an exit speed as slow as 122 mph could achieve this. (Owing to the engine first bouncing off of another building at 45 Park Place that exhibits crash physics, the engine was probably going much faster than that.)

Everything that you have offered as an alternative explanation for what was observed and recorded has come up short, from projected holograms to cloaked planes.

You're just going to have to face up to the fact that you have been duped by the "no planes" premise. And I believe the reason the NPT premise was hyped so much and so craftily by the likes of September Clues (with an end goal of failure) was to distract and distort from the two valid instances of no planes (like the fly-over at the Pentagon and Shanksville.)

Ms. Rae writes: "We can only go with the evidence and the exit holes. So the corner trajectory as shown in videos exits at a 45 degree angle."

Poppycock again and fooey on your understanding of geometry this time. It's been proven that alternating floors of the towers did not have vertical beams in the angled corners, which is precisely the opening in question for a smoking engine to fly through.

Those angled corners are really no different than the corner pockets on a pool table. Thus, according to your misinterpretation of the trajectory, when playing pool, the only way to sink pool balls into the corner pocket is to shoot them in from a 45 degree angle from the pocket. We both know that this isn't so, and that other angles can cleanly sink a pool ball.

Your assumption of a 45 degree angle for a trajectory out of the towers from the corner window is just plain wrong and verges on being deceitful.

Ms. Rae asks: "Why would an engine leave such a distinct white trail that only missiles/rockets leave behind?"

This is a jet engine that had been engorged in jet fuel hardly a full second before exiting the towers. Even after separated from the wings and its fuel tanks, the engine itself would have fuel lines with residual fuel that could burn inefficiently and leave a distinct white trail behind. If you've ever driven behind cars in need of a ring job and tune-up or even diesel trucks not warmed up yet, you'd know that missiles and rockets are the only things that can leave distinct smoke trails behind.

Ms. Rae writes: "I didn't verify your calculations..."

Shame on you. And they are so simple. The only thing that is wrong is the exit velocity of 122 mph, which would be needed to travel laterally 1,400 ft while falling 925 ft. The reality is the the engine hit another building prior to traveling the full 1,400 ft or falling the full 925 ft, which suggests that the exit velocity was > 122 mph.

Ms. Rae writes: "... but I highly doubt an engine would be flying out of there after busting through the first set of structural steel columns/concrete floor/spandrels."

Your cognitive dissonance is strong, Ms. Rae. If the impact velocity was 500 mph and the exit velocity was less than, say, 200 mph, the decrease in speed is accounted for by "busting through the first set of structural steel columns." The premise is that the engine impacted between floors, so it would not have "burst through concrete floors or spandrels," a misrepresentation on your part.

And even "bursting through steel columns" is a misinterpretation, because it hit against wall assemblies, severed connecting bolts, and pushed those assemblies out of the way or bent them out of the way, both of which require less energy than "bursting through."

Ms. Rae writes: "Don't you think the whole plane would have gone in a different direction after the first impact???"

What misinterpretation are you talking about now?

The airplane did not impact the towers in a perpendicular fashion (or 90 degrees). No, it hit at an angle which is exhibited in all videos and the momentum vectors of the parts ejected out of the tower.

//

x195 Maxwell C. Bridges : only tangible evidence to support DEW theory is the presence of depleted uranium

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You wrote: "So it seems that the only tangible evidence you have to support your DEW theory is the presence of depleted uranium."

I do not like your game playing, Mr. Aveyard, like attributing false statements to me. I never said that the WTC had depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium was used in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US military, and indicates a certain degree of callousness in the minds of our leaders that it would be deployed at all, and against international law. And its use in war also indicates a potential bent to use nuclear means in the false flag events to get the wars kicked into gear.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Refresh my memory, who said there was uranium at ground zero?"

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) did an excellent job of promptly, systematically, and thoroughly taking dust samples. They put their findings into tables.

However, when it came to discussing the significance of certain elements in the tables, they purposely dropped the ball and instead focus on asbestos and other toxants in the dust in order to attribute ill health effects exclusively to them. Their omission of any analysis of their own tables of what they measured is pretty glaring.

The Paul Lioy report on three "representative" dust samples, all East of the WTC, also documents the presence of Uranium. Its Table 2 lists various inorganic elements and metals, but does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U).

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Who did the analysis?"

Very good question, because neither the USGS nor the Paul Lioy et al group nor Dr. Jones analyzed the obvious correlations of various elements in the dust that spell out nuclear hijinx.

But Jeff Prager did.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "How much was there?"

Sounds like a good research project for you, Mr. Aveyard.

The amount doesn't really matter. Here's a quote from Jeff Prager when he studied the tabulated results from the USGS: "Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place."

You can find more information on the subject here, as well as links to take you to source documents. Rabbit-hole warning.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html#x12

//

x196 Peter Aveyard : false statements WTC had depleted uranium

Peter Aveyard 11:15am Mar 16
You said..
"I do not like your game playing, Mr. Aveyard, like attributing false statements to me. I never said that the WTC had depleted uranium."
I beg to differ, clearly you inferred that the WTC had depleted uranium.

This was without doubt your intention. Note our conversation was about your hypothesis the DEW's were used to bring down the WTC. When I asked you for evidence you pointed to the presence of uranium. This is the only tangible source you have provided.

Get your story straight Max, are you saying that DEW's brought down the WTC and the physical evidence you have is depleted uranium in the dust or not? If not, I repeat my question. Where is your tangible evidence that DEW's were used to bring down the WTC.

x197 Maxwell C. Bridges : ~never~ suggested the weapons used depleted uranium

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

I know the difference between nuclear weapons of type fission, fusion, neutron, and depleted uranium (DU).

Within the framework of the WTC on 9/11, I have ~never~ suggested that the involved weapons used depleted uranium. "Depleted uranium" is your wording, not mine.

That you persist in applying this wrong association to me only furthers my impression that you are playing games. Prove me wrong. Find my exact reference to depleted uranium as it pertains to the WTC on 9/11 with a URL, or offer apologies.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "This was without doubt your intention. Note our conversation was about your hypothesis the DEW's were used to bring down the WTC. When I asked you for evidence you pointed to the presence of uranium. This is the only tangible source you have provided."

I am not going to do your homework for you, Mr. Aveyard. Suffice it to say, there is a big difference between "presence of uranium (in the dust)" and "depleted uranium (in the dust)." Look up "depleted uranium" and learn its exact meaning.

And for the record, two different sources who took dust samples recorded the presence of uranium and other heavy metals in the dust, as well as other elements whose presence in correlated quantities proves nuclear involvement.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Get your story straight Max, are you saying that DEW's brought down the WTC and the physical evidence you have is depleted uranium in the dust or not?"

No, you get my story straight and stop playing games to juke it into your own malframed views, Mr. Aveyard. I gave you a link.

I am saying that the DEW was nuclear powered, probably a variant of neutron devices (that are themselves fusion based and probably fission-triggered). They probably tweaked these neutron devices further to focus the energy at certain wavelengths.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Where is your tangible evidence that DEW's were used to bring down the WTC?"

Obviously, Mr. Aveyard, you did not read the article on my blog that I pointed you to. Had you done so, you wouldn't be asking the question. Almost turns the question into an example of "busy-work" game-playing, whereby you have me scurry off to research and answer yours questions so that you can promptly ignore it.

Am I correct in assuming, Mr. Aveyard, that you believe the official story and the garbage produced by NIST about jet fuel and office furnishing fires weakening steel and resulting in localized failure that pulverized the rest of the structure at near gravitational acceleration? If so, no need to go any further, because it demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of Newtonian physics. Gravity cannot accomplish both pulverization and near free-fall at the same time, so energy had to be added.

Assuming that you can acknowledge this fact about extra energy being required, then the question becomes what was the energy source that enabled this feat?

"Tangible source" of nuclear powered DEW begins with the energy requirements of pulverization and gravitational acceleration. To this we add that the destruction was not deafening loud, which any chemical based explosives and incendiaries would be. (If the nuclear devices are tweaked for enhancing the yields at specific wavelengths, it takes away from blast waves that would otherwise be very loud.) It progresses further that things like paper, flags, and people weren't ignited, yet lots of anomalous vehicle damage in a car park and along West Broadway hasn't got word one of an explanation from the government or even the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. And then there's the duration of under-rubble hot-spots that can't be attributed to diesel fuel, office furnishings, or even chemical based explosives and incendiaries without suggesting obscene amounts unspent from their original pulverizing purposes. You've already learned that the USGS and Paul Lioy et al measured uranium and other heavy metals in the dust, but did not venture any clarification or explanation for them. Were you to follow my link, you would learn about the tiny instances of scientific sleight of hand in numerous reports that were meant to buttress the false belief that nuclear weapons were not involved. Kudos to those reports for achieving the goals of their limited scopes (relating to benign health effects), but those very limited scopes and the methodologies appropriate for them did not make those reports suitable for making conclusions about larger scopes, like the involvement of nuclear means.

Don't be offended when I go off-line after this response and don't come back until next weekend. Spring break and all that jazz.

//

x198 Maxwell C. Bridges : Perpendicular Ejection from South Tower

The image says: "Perpendicular Ejection from South Tower WTC-2 had to land along the Red arrow, somewhere along Broadway."

Talk about a malframed statement!

The airplane did not impact the tower perpendicularly, and all video evidence bears this out.

No, it hit it at an angle. And guess what? If you took the cyan line segment that goes from the engine on Church & Murray to the corner of WTC-2 and extended it out the other side, you will more or less get the angle that the aircraft hit the towers at.

//

x199 FB Participants ATW : who's mentoring you

Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges Do your calculations also apply to the shoe in the picture? Or should we brush up on Operation Northwoods where they talk about dispersing parts (plant evidence)?

I would think long and hard about who's mentoring you.
7 hours ago · Like · 1

Maxwell Bridges Ms. Rae asks: "Do your calculations [for the engine] also apply to the shoe in the picture?"

The calculations apply to the shoe as much as they apply to the trash can. And you are making a mistake to assume that the engine, trash can, and shoe all came from the airplane.

For all we know, the shoe belongs to a photographer who put it there to give scale to pictures he was taking (which may or may not include this shot.)

It is noteworthy that a shot of the engine taken from a different direction shows neither the trash can nor the shoe.

//

Norma Rae wrote: "I would think long and hard about who's mentoring you."

Maybe only someone who is being mentored herself would come up with the notion that others are being mentored. Therefore, maybe she is the one who should think long and hard about who's mentoring her.

Were I to have a mentor, they would have told me to forget about 9/11 a decade ago.

//

x200 FB Participants ATW : radar tracking device on the missile

Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges If they manipulated 9/11, then surely they could have put the radar tracking device on the missile that created the hole on the tower. That was a missile that created the hole.

+++
Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges Why are you ignoring that the engine would have been redirected in a different direction after busting through Structural Steel Columns. Who put you up to propagating such bullsh_t? And I'm going to ask you now, did you ever take a course in physics or did Mackey teach it to you?

+++
Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges Why bothers wasting my Saturday night verifying your calculations when I already know it's total poppycock that an engine would not redirect itself after busting through steel columns and the absurdity that it would land under a scaffolding in an upright position. I had better things to do than fall into your trap.

+++
Norma Rae Oh Mr. Maxwell Bridges I do so like you in my group. You entertain us.

+++
Michael Arnold Mr. Bridges,
Even if the engine bounced off a building, I would expect to see a big divot or small crater. Not hard science, I realize.
I'm not a no-planer, but I do not believe pilots flew those planes due to speeds and maneuvers. Also, I concede that no-planers might be right. The video evidence is all very suspicious.
Norma Rae: as for AE and no-planes, my hunch is that they are not convinced through irrefutable evidence that it was no planes so they are just going with the official story on that point. It doesn't change the evidence of controlled demolition. They can't argue about planes if they are not able to prove what they say. Either way it's controlled demo.

+++
Brian Sheridan I am a definite "no planer" simply because there were no planes..... first TV broadcasts of the "2nd plane" shows the nose of the plane coming out of the other side, what else does anybody need .........

+++
Ronald Stacker Society has been dumbed down, Mr. Brian Sheridan. I know a few people who don't have a problem believing that the nose came through fully intact. Sad, is the most respectful way I can describe it.

+++
Michael Arnold I say this with respect: Are you saying some sort if high tech hologram was used ie The Ball? Also sound had to be projected. Not saying it couldn't be done.

+++
Ronald Stacker There was no sound.

x201 Maxwell C. Bridges : what poppycock direction

Dear Ms. Rae,

You wrote: "Why are you ignoring that the engine would have been redirected in a different direction after busting through Structural Steel Columns."

And what poppycock direction does Ms. Rae think the engine would have been re-directed in?

And why is it so hard for her to believe that the angle of the plane's fuselage axis with the wall assemblies of the tower would be the same angle that an engine would exit the towers from the corner that its trajectory was coincidentally aligned with? Simple physics.

She writes in another comment: "Why bothers wasting my Saturday night verifying your calculations..."

I showed my work in doing the math. And it is very simple math and physics: high school level.

But Ms. Rae's lame excuse for not trying the math is: "... when I already know it's total poppycock that an engine would not redirect itself after busting through steel columns..."

Indeed, any number of different forces could have acted on the engine as it plowed into the towers and pushed a steel wall assembly out of the way which could have caused it to head a different direction. But it didn't. It flew a trajectory that was coincident with the fuselage's angle of incidence with respect to the towers. Given its momentum, this is not surprising. Why does Ms. Rae think it is?

Ms. Rae continues: "... and the absurdity that it would land under a scaffolding in an upright position."

Ms. Rae was encouraged to get an old pop-can, fill it with sand, and to toss it end over end into the air many times and observe how it lands. Agreed that the majority of the time, it will land on its side. But all it takes is a special flick of the wrist timed just right to get this can to land and stay on its end, and the first time it happens, it proves that such "upright absurdity" is within the realm of probability.

I will say this, however. The pictures taken of this engine and its audiences are for sure curious. One picture has a shoe and trashcan without dust (e.g., prior to a tower demolition), and then another picture has the dust over everything, except no shoe or trashcan. Why would the trashcan not be there anymore? The fact that it got moved before the dust came does exhibit how crime scenes were not preserved and that a fair amount of staging went on. The broken sign is another example where suddenly it is posed next to the engine.

I am amazed that no one thought of taking pictures of the impact point on the street (after bouncing off the other building.)

For what its worth, my contention is that an engine could have flown the requisite distance from its trajectory. But I leave the door open for it having some staging assistance to get it under the scaffolding.

My unfounded speculation is that the escaping engine and landing gear were unforeseen mistakes, because the plan was to have no parts of the plane turn up and be identifiable. Such identification could prove the aircraft wasn't the make and model of the alleged commercial aircraft, which in turn would raise all sorts of uncomfortable questions. Therefore, the crack teams were send to locate the ejected pieces and dispose of them. And then came the cameras and interrupted the work.

Ms. Rae writes: "I had better things to do than fall into your trap."

The math and physics weren't a trap, except for those who pedal premises that the truth from the mathematics contradicts. If the math is wrong, it can be fixed. Not addressing the math reflects poorly in many ways.

And then Ms. Norma Rae wrote the most curious things across several comments and a couple of threads.

+++ begin quotes

- "Who put you up to propagating such bullsh_t?"

- "And I'm going to ask you now, did you ever take a course in physics or did Mackey teach it to you?"

- "I would think long and hard about who's mentoring you."

- "I do so like you in my group. You entertain us."

+++ end quotes

"Feed my sheep" was the directive I got with regards to 9/11 when I embarked on my humble 9/11 activism many years ago. I consider myself an honest seeker of truth. Indeed, nuggets of truth are what I rescue from the purposeful disinformation efforts. I am a religious fanatic, and what I'm fanatical about the most is Truth.

It is noteworthy that Ms. Rae did not address my math and physics and did not verify it or debunk it, before flying off the handle and calling it "propagating such bullsh_t?" Most interesting.

I can honestly say that I never took physics in high school. Lots of physics courses were required for my engineering degree though.

Who is "Mackey"? Is he my mentor?

It is similar to "Craig McKee", who I do know from the internet because I've been active on his blog. No, not my mentor.

Were I to have a mentor, they would have told me to forget about 9/11 a decade ago.

Maybe only someone who is being mentored herself would come up with the notion that others are being mentored. Therefore, maybe she is the one who should think long and hard about who's mentoring her.

Take your time responding. Think long and hard. Write off-line. Don't flood the forum with individual comments. I won't be online until next weekend anyway.

//

x202 Maxwell C. Bridges : primary vector

Ms. Norma Rae writes: "It doesn't matter what angle the imaginary 'plane' hit..."

The angle that the aircraft hit the wall does matter and is important, because that vector will be the primary vector of much of the mass.

Ms. Rae continues "... because the video shows the debris exiting perpendicular to the wall."

The very image that she posts shows crap coming out of three walls. Worse, a whole series of images from different perspectives shows at least two major objects flying trajectories that were perpendicular to none of the walls.

Ms. Norma Rae, who avoided looking into a simple high school physics problem on another thread thinking it was a trap writes so confidently: "if an imaginary plane hit at a specific angle, you can't extrapolate from there because you are FAILING to account for Crash Physics which sends everything in a million directions."

No, Ms. Rae is wrong. You can extrapolate from the aircraft's angle of incidence particularly when the objects in question have a dense mass and lots of momentum, like an airplane engine.

If the crash physics would have sent the engine another direction, I could have believed that, too. Why can't Ms. Rae believe that the vector it traveled after impact aligns with the vector it was traveling before impact?

Whoever is mentoring you, Ms. Rae, should inform you that going on your gut instincts regarding crash physics isn't nearly as persuassive as back-of-the-envelope calculations and reasoning based on real physics.

Ms. Rae hopes to trap me: "You failed to give me a scenario of how the engine grabbed the Murray and One Way sign."

It was a combination of being hit with the shoe and the trashcan that also came from the aircraft with the engine. [Sarcasm.]

The assumption you make is that the engine hit the sign. I think that this scene was picked over and manipulated from the moments it was discovered, as proven by the trash can and the sign and the shoe.

//

x203 Maxwell C. Bridges : the engine isn't my hobby-horse

No, you cut the crap, Ms. Rae. At least when new information and analysis is brought to my attention, I consider it well and can change my conclusions based on it. Happened recently to get me from neutron nuclear DEW to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons that have DEW and nuclear aspects.

The engine isn't my hobby-horse. I think that the scene was tampered with. You think it was staged. Let's go with that for a moment.

If they had the foresight to stage a smoldering engine, why didn't they get one that was correct for the alleged commercial aircraft?

How did they manage to get two large projectiles to launch out of the WTC-2, one of them having an exit vector in the same direction as the entrance vector?

And if it wasn't the engine and wheel assembly that flew out of the towers and were tracted by video, what were they and were did they go?

You're fighting hard to shoot down all supposition that real objects (e.g., engine) from real aircraft could do what they were practically observed doing (up to a point prior to being positioned under a scaffolding). Yet the physics tells us it is within the realm of probability.

You were fighting hard to shoot down the observed impact and damage as being non-compliant with physics, when in reality both physics calculations and experiments (Sandia F4, Mythbuster) prove that it was possible.

You were fighting hard to validate the wonders of holograms, yet even those who had more technical information that you had it handed back to them with proofs on why it wasn't scalable to 9/11 without its limitations being obvious.

Your physics has been argued from the gut, not from the equations.

Sure, I was duped by no planes at one point myself, but mine was all about pixel manipulation on the telly and did not involve holograms. Each and every time I tried to get holograms to fit, they failed.

x204 FB Participants ATW : would the trajectory be the same

2014-03-21

Norma Rae But if we ejected a billiard at 122 mph and we ejected a bowling ball at 122 mph, they would react very differently. I know for free fall, theoretically they would drop at the same rate. Hmmm. It is interesting that I can't find a formula with mass in it. I'll have to ask my engineer friends. Thanks Steve Grage you're probably right, I'm just not satisfied yet
Yesterday at 9:23am · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage If I ejected a billiard (horizontally) from 980 feet @ 122mph, would the trajectory be the same if I ejected a bowling ball with the same parameters? The gravitational force is acting on the object as it travels horizontally, so the one with the greater mass would not travel as far? Horizontally, the mass has to be a factor, I would think.
Yesterday at 9:58am · Like

Norma Rae Momentum. Body parts and big chunks of metal found at the same location 1400 feet away is impossible.

"Momentum = Mass x Velocity"

Norma Rae Is there a picture of the original landing gear that they supposedly found on 9/11 on TOP of 51 Park Place? Could this be that part and they were never able to pull it out that day for whatever reason???
Yesterday at 12:49pm · Like · 1

Steve Grage Negative Norma, again if you neglect air resistance, and eject a feather, bowling ball, cotton ball, or any object, you'll have the exact same trajectory.
22 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Can't be. Try throwing a billiard ball. and try throwing a bowling ball. They require different forces (velocities) to get them to the same spot.
22 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae It's only in free fall (vertical) that they will fall at the same time.
22 hours ago · Edited · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage, We are using those dimensions and being told those items landed there. The problem is they lied to us. So if we took a real life experiment and ejected a body part at 122 mph, it would indeed have a very different trajectory than that hunk of metal. We don't even really know what the real trajectories would be of the 'engine', 'wheel', landing gear. Mass has to matter in a horizontal trajectory.
22 hours ago · Edited · Like

Steve Grage Fun piece of learning for you to explore, do you know of a free body diagram? Draw one with any object in motion and you'll find gravitational force g acting down towards the earth, neglecting air resistence of course.
22 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges & Steve Grage the real question is how much do those objects weigh? Then we would be able to determine what velocity is required to get those heavy objects to land 1400 feet away.
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Nope, again mass/weight is not a factor.
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Nope, again mass/weight is not a factor.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Hmmm. I can't find any formulas with mass in them. Maybe you are right. I'll keep checking.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae But do you really believe that the body parts and landing gear would fly 1400 feet?
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Of course not, no collision with plane. Debris from the explosion is what was seen but don't trust videos. We know better.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Right, we know they lied. But if you ejected a body part, a complete body, and a landing gear at the same velocity, do you think they would land in the same spot?
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae The force required to eject a landing gear is much greater than the force required to eject a body part. They would not land in the same spot.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae So theoretically, they had the same forces applied. The lighter object would be ejected much further. Do you agree?
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Steve Grage Be very close, air resistance is the only force to make a difference, and that will be different with different objects.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae No the weight of metal is a lot compared to body parts. (I have to go to the market right now)
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Sure, more energy to get object in motion but then there's Newton's first law.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Right, they don't give us weights on their planted evidence. That would be a nice piece of data
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage For a different purpose maybe, like collision with pavement, what stopped objects motion, etc.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Now I know how to account for mass in a trajectory....substitute v=F/m....duh!

"Distance traveled"

d = (v * cos (T)/g)(v * sin(T) + sqr((v * sin(T))^2 + 2 g y0))
g: gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/s^2
T = Theta = angle at which the projectile is launched
v: the velocity at which the projectile is launched
y0: the initial height of the projectile
d: the total horizontal distance traveled by the projectile

20 hours ago · Like · 1

Steve Grage LOL, not quite Norma Rae. Don't quit studying.
19 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage You don't think I can substitute v with F/m? I'm quite satisfied with my answer. Clearly objects weighing different masses will require different forces to land them in the same spot. Throw a billiard ball with your hand. Now throw a car with your hand. I think you need to do some studying
19 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage I'm going to run some excel spreadsheet numbers for you. I'll show you that it makes a difference. Give me your best guess on what hunk that of metal weighs. And your best guess on a body part (arm).

Norma Rae's photo.

19 hours ago · Edited · Like

Steve Grage I know you can't Norma, it's been a long time since I learned this. I don't remember what triggered my understanding. Force does not equal momentum, you can figure that by units. Yes, it takes more energy to get a larger mass moving than a smaller mass both going the same velocity. Different concept.
19 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage How about this example. Roll a bowling ball off a cliff at 10mph. Then roll a car off the same cliff at 10mph. Do they land in the same spot?
19 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Ok, now advise what your units are (be exact) for the random numbers of F,m, and v. Are they the same on both sides (v=F/M)? You'll find the answer is no because F=ma not F=mv.
18 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Sorry, I'm rushing, I plugged in the wrong numbers. I'm trying to cook...
18 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae I better go finish cooking then I can do this thing right
18 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Ok, I'm back. Sorry about that. Not easy having to feed the family and calculate trajectories at the same time.
17 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Conclusion: The distance is inversely proportional to the mass. The greater the mass, the shorter the distance and vise versa.

Norma Rae's photo.

F=ma
v=(Force)(time)/(mass) = Ft/m

13 hours ago · Edited · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage Imagine swapping out that baseball for a lead ball. The machine doesn't know the difference. Do you think that lead ball will travel just as far as the baseball? ... Absolutely not. Mass is in the equation when it comes to trajectories.

Norma Rae's photo.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

Steve Grage Different concept. It takes more energy for pitching machine to bring lead ball to Vo. But if Vo is same for lead ball and baseball, yes, same distance traveled. You'll learn mass is not a factor.
9 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage your work above, nope, you can't just divide velocity v by arbitrary time t to get acceleration, Acceleration is a change in velocity divided by a change in unit time. In projectile motion, acceleration g is constant, as is horizontal velocity.
9 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae the change in time unit is 0-1 second.
4 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae It's Algebra: You have 2 equations. You can substitute v in the 1st equation with v=(force)(time)/mass. Now you can measure your trajectory based on varying masses.

Norma Rae's photo.

force = mass x (velocity/time) = (mass x velocity)/time = momentum / time

v=(force)(time)/(mass)

A trajectory is dependent on mass. The distance traveled is inversely proportional to the mass.

4 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae

Norma Rae's photo.

Note: as you increase the time interval, the velocity will also increase. But the launch velocity decreases with heavier objects.)

4 hours ago · Like

x205 Maxwell C. Bridges : falls into that category of wrong

Part 1/2

Dear Ms. Rae,

You mentioned at one point that you don't want to post (or keep posted) anything that is wrong. I regret to inform you that this thread and your comments on physics falls into that category.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Now I know how to account for mass in a trajectory....substitute v=F/m....duh!"

Incorrect.

Stave Grage properly pointed out the initial error that Ms. Rae then propagates from there and leads to a false conclusion. I will elaborate here and am endeavoring to be nice in correcting the error. This is not personal.

+++ Begin Error from Ms. Rae

[ok] F = ma
[wrong] force = mass x (velocity/time) = (mass x velocity)/time = momentum/time

+++ End Error from Ms. Rae

Acceleration is equal to the ~~change~~ in velocity over a period of time. Ms. Rae attempts to plug in a velocity. INCORRECT! DANGER, PENNY ROBINSON! DANGER!

And this is how the mass term erronously creaped into the generalized equation for trajectory. Almost everything in Mrs. Rae's calculation following this erronous substitution is wrong, including her conclusions.

WRONG: "Conclusion: The objects that weigh less will be ejected farther because the heavier items are slowed down by a greater downward force of F=ma."

WRONG: "Note: as you increase the time interval, the velocity will also increase. But the launch velocity decreases with heavier objects.)"

WRONG: "Conclusion: The distance is inversely proportional to the mass. The greater the mass, the shorter the distance and vise versa."

In the movie "Speed", Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock are on a bus that can go no slower that 55 mph. Imagine that they had a bowling ball, a billiard ball, a lead ball (the same size as the billiard ball), etc. They opened up the front door to eject these articles. If they held the objects out the door and simply dropped them, every single one of them would have a "launch velocity" (V0) the same speed as the bus. Period. By definition. All the same.

The "launch velocity" is what it is for any size or weight object. What changes for heavier objects is the amount of energy required to achieve the launch velocity and the amount of energy that the heavier object will have available to it during a collision. This may have been Ms. Rae's true point.

What happens is that the objects decelerate due to wind resistance from their launch velocity (V0). And the wind resistence is not dependent on mass but is dependent on surface area.

Here is the correct may to use that generalized equation in the 9/11 case.

d = (v * cos (T)/g) * ((v * sin(T)) + sqr((v * sin(T))^2 + 2 g y0))

g: gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/s^2
T: Theta angle at which the projectile is launched
v: the velocity at which the projectile is launched
y0: the initial height of the projectile
d: the total horizontal distance traveled by the projectile

Theta (T) in this case is 0 degrees, because the object is "launched" after breaking through the towers. Therefore, the sin(T) terms go to zero while the cos(T) terms go to 1, leaving:

d(x) = (v/g)(sqrt(2 * g * y0)) [(m/s)/(m/s^2)] sqr ([m/sec^2] [m])
d(x) = (v/g)(sqrt(2 * g * y0)) [m]

The launch velocity (v) in this case is actually ~unknown~, while the distance is supposedly known (1,400 ft ~= 426 m). Let's solve for velocity (v) and use y0 = 299 [m] for where the engine struck.

v = d * g / (sqr(2 g y0)) [m/s]
v = (426 [m] * 9.81 [m/s^2]) / (sqrt (2 * 9.81 [m/s^2] * 299 [m]))
v = (4179 [m^2/s^2] / (sqrt (5866 [m^2/s^2]))
v = (4179 / 76.5) [m/s] = 54.6 m/s (~= 197 km/hr ~= 122 mph)

Surprise, surprise. This initial launch velocity agrees with what I had earlier calculated. Namely, I separated the movement in the x-direction from the y-direction. I determined first how long it would take an object to drop under the force of gravity y0=299 [m]. Answer was 7.8 seconds. Using v = d/t where the distance to be traveled was 426 [m] and the time it had to be completed in was 7.8 seconds, I determined that velocity was 54.6 [m/s]. [The difference was that I was not using metric in my calculations.]

Conclusion: If the exterior wall assembly slowed down the engine from 500 mph to 122 mph and the engine slipped out the corner window on a floor without a center beam at about 980 ft, the engine could travel about 1,400 ft. It is believable that the engine came from a real aircraft.

// Part 1/2

Part 2/2

I am presently reading "9/11 Deceptions" by M.P. Lelong and am mining it for nuggets of truth.

Here is some divergent but relevant information.

Firemen walking up Vessey saw burning plane parts. West Street had plane parts and body parts. Cortland Street was "littered with plane parts". Vessey towards West had "body parts, baggage, clothes..." Firemen and other witnesses reported an engine at West Broadway & West Vessey, 300 ft (~= 91.4 m) and that it flew over WTC-6.

The numbers who reported seeing plane parts is significant. As for body parts, they could be attributed to victims from the impacted floors. The quotes about baggage, clothes, and airplane tickets, I'm not quite sure about. Mr. Lelong wrote his book by mining other people's work. Like me, he picks and chooses, and disinformation from other sources could easily make it into his derivative work.

I'm not very far into Mr. Lelong's book, but he seems to be promoting assistance on the aircraft (e.g., pod on plane being for a missile) to help bore an entry path and whose explosion may also have contributed to the "hurl backwards". Mr. Lelong attributes plane parts, people, baggage, tickets, and shoes as being "hurled ~~backwards~~" from the first plane hitting WTC-1, which videos do not show.

// End Part 2

x206 Maxwell C. Bridges : If we wanted to be exact about things

Ms. Rae wrote in the picture: "Engine on Church & Murray. ~1,400 feet away from WTC-2 found sitting under a scaffolding in a bolted upright position. ... Hunk of metal allegedly from the plane found April 2013 at 51 Park Place, ~1,300 ft from WTC-2, wedged 5 stories doewn in a narrow gap. ... Wheel found at West & Rector. ~1,300 feet away from WTC-1. No indication on cement that it crashed there. Rubber not melted from the explosion. ... "

This is where Ms. Rae is being alarmist.

Allegedly, the aircraft that struck the WTC-2 going 500 mph had one of its engines pass through the tower and out its corner window (on a floor without the vertical beam in the corner window). The engine flew towards 51 Park Place where it damaged the roof before bouncing to the ground, where it tumbled under the scaffolding into an upright position.

If we wanted to be exact about things, the Park Place building was 5 stories tall. For the sake of discussion, let's assume each story was 12 ft tall, therefore the damage happened at 60 ft in the air.

Let's assume that the airplane engine exited the towers from the 80th floor, which we'll say was 925 ft.

Therefore, the engine fell (925-60 [ft]) = 865 ft, which means its time in flight was from Newton's equatios:

t = sqr(2d/g)
time to fall 865 ft = sqr((2*865 [ft])/32 [ft/sec^2])
t(865) = 7.3 seconds

Velocity is equal to distance traveled divided by time.

v = (1300 [ft] / 7.3 [sec]) = 177 [ft/sec] ~= 121 mph

This velocity is pretty close to what was calculated to go 1400 ft.

+++ begin quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51

During the attacks, the then-five-story building at 45–47 Park Place, between West Broadway and Church Street, was severely damaged. When United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center, part of the plane's landing gear, engine and fuselage came out the north side of the tower and crashed through the roof of 45–47 Park Place, and through two of its floors. The plane parts destroyed three floor beams, and severely compromised the building's internal structure. The damage was not immediately noticed during an exterior assessment. It was later discovered during an interior assessment. In April 2013, the New York Police Department announced that surveyors inspecting the building had discovered a 17-inch-wide piece, five foot long airplane part complete with Boeing identification number wedged in an 18-inch-wide alley between 51 Park and 50 Murray Street. Initially officials thought it was part of the landing gear but Boeing confirmed it was the trailing edge flap actuation support structure of an airplane flap from a Boeing 767. 767's hit both towers. A photograph of the piece initially showed a rope around it. Police said the rope was used by an officer who lassoed it to see the identification number. Boeing could not say which specific plane it was from.
+++ end quote

It remains within the realm of probability that the engine could have decelerated upon impact with the exterior wall assemblies from 500 mph to 122 mph by the time it exited a beam-less corner window from about the 80th floor to fly to 45-47 Park Place, to leave a piece of itself wedged between buildings, to bounce off and to the ground, and to tumble under a scaffolding.

Repeating what Ms. Rae wrote in her image: " ... Wheel found at West & Rector. ~1,300 feet away from WTC-1. No indication on cement that it crashed there. Rubber not melted from the explosion."

Assuming that the wheel made it through the WTC-1 (whose impact and aftermath we have only from one video perspective), the physics seem plausible that its velocity was slowed but still sufficient to travel the distance.

The "melted rubber from the explosion" doesn't frame things properly. The amount of time that the wheel would have been within an exploding jet fuel fireball was very short. (Ever pass your finger through the flame of a burning candle? Even the slowest you could do it and not be injured represents a time that was probably longer than the tire was in the fireball.) The tires of airplanes are used to high heat in short durations, because this is what happens during landings with the friction of first touchdown.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Maxwell Bridges I apologize in advance, but I seriously question your judgement and/or agenda."

Ms. Rae has not refuted my estimations on what the ejection velocity of an engine or tire would have been in order to travel their respective distances. Ms. Rae also introduced errors in her physics analysis that then led to blatantly wrong conclusions.

It isn't just a wheel and an engine. Lots of testimony collaborates that aircraft parts were found in many places around the towers, as I'm learning from reading M.P. Lelong's book "9/11 Deceptions" that he crafts from mining other 9/11 sources.

Ms. Rae's agenda apparently has been to dispute that real aircrafts hit the towers in order to prop up some other theory. However, the evidence for aircrafts seems pretty substantial, albeit the aircraft have never been definitively proven to be the alleged aircraft. Moreover, Ms. Rae's main alternate theory (e.g., holograms) has other major weaknesses.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. Real planes aren't my hobby-horse. But they are more plausible than the alternative theories at this point, substantiated by lots of testimony whose evidence would have been extremely difficult to plant on the scale and in the timing of their discovery.

//

Norma Rae
Norma Rae's photo.

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1969390_10201010443303497_1655689155_n.jpg

March 19 at 2:03pm · Like · 1

x207 Maxwell C. Bridges : hard to fake in a short time frame

Dear Mr. Grage,

It isn't just the engine and wheel assembly that must be planted. As I mentioned, I am reading M.P. Lelong's book, "9/11 Deceptions". He mines other 9/11 sources in compiling his derivative work. He has found many quotes of first responders. Here are my notes from the quotes:

- walking up Vessey, saw burning plane parts.
- West Broadway & West Vessey, engine part in middle of street.
- West Street: plane parts
- Dey St. and Cortland St. "littered with plane parts"
- Vessey towards West: body parts, baggage, clothes
- West St.: body parts

The point is, plane parts were identified (presumably in cases before the towers came down) that would be hard to fake in a short time frame, but not so hard to explain if the actual outcome of a plane.

Sure, Mr. Grage, if you want to doubt that an engine could go through a wall assembly and slow down from 500 mph to 122 mph in the process, fine. Maybe you'll have reason to go along with Mr. Lelong in his suspicions that the aircraft was enhanced with a pod to help plow the way with a missile. Would you believe in a real aircraft if that were the case?

All I know is that the amount of aircraft debris as spotted by many witnesses is rather convincing to me. Whereas Ms. Rae uses her gut to doubt that a projectile could travel 1,400 ft from the towers, the physics documents the conditions when it would be possible, and 122 mph seems neither unreasonable to me, nor too fast/slow for the smoking object captured on video.

//

x208 Norma Rae : complete lack of crash physics

Norma Rae 2:23pm Mar 22
The complete lack of crash physics on the landing surface proves they didn't land there. All the evidence was gingerly placed there. They've been plotting false flags for a long time. They knew to plant evidence in strategic locations.
https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1474368_10201025738285862_1508098205_n.jpg

Norma Rae
Norma Rae 2:36pm Mar 22
Mr. Maxwell Bridges You can complicate it as much as you want and you can get your jollies on calculation after calculation, but I assure you, all you need is pure logic.

Norma Rae
Norma Rae 2:36pm Mar 22
Mr. Maxwell Bridges though calculations are important, let's not throw logic out the window.

https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1004873_10201025815967804_1164344837_n.jpg

Norma Rae 3:12pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges Since you are really good at calculations, can you determine what the mass of the object would have to be to get it to fly 1400 feet away? That would be interesting to see. I've got to run right now, but maybe I can look into it later.

Norma Rae
Norma Rae 8:38pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges Thank you for pointing out my errors. I don't take it personal :) I stand corrected on two items with I recognize.

I made the mistake to say v=F/m, I later recognized it and corrected it. The correct equation would be v=Ft/m, If you read the thread I corrected that.

The following statement I made is also incorrect: "The objects that weigh less will be ejected farther because the heavier items are slowed down by a greater downward force of F=ma."

Norma Rae 8:40pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges, I agree with what you are saying EXCEPT, all we are concluding is that a RANDOM OBJECT can land at that distance and that velocity.

What we have FAILED to prove is WHAT OBJECT landed at that location. Was it an ELEPHANT, A MOUSE, A CAR, A HOUSE......MASS IS CRUCIAL. If we worked mass into the equation, I bet it would not match the mass of the engine and landing gear.

There is no way in hell that landing gear and engine were tossed 1400 feet.

Norma Rae
Norma Rae 8:44pm Mar 22
Starting fires, they had that covered too.
https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/10151425_10201027234763273_746780720_n.jpg

Norma Rae 8:46pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges I asked my 4th Grade daughter which object would fall a greater distance: a light object or a heavy object. She knew the lighter object would land further. Why? Because she used logic. 9/11 has messed with our ability to use our logic. I trust heavily on my logic.

Norma Rae 9:03pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges, if mass is not a factor then why wasn't the passport found 1400 feet away? You have got to recognize that we didn't prove a landing gear nor an engine could land that far. What we proved is that in order for a random object to land that far it would require that velocity. We must, we must incorporate the mass.

Norma Rae 9:04pm Mar 22
Oh and by the way, I hope you know the fireproof passport was also planted :)

x209 Maxwell C. Bridges : a distinction needs to be made on the levels of staging required

Dear Ms. Rae, Part 1/2

Ten comments to my one? Okay, the three images meant that you had to have at least three comments. But surely all of the others could have been condensed or edited or appended at some point to one of the three? Ten, though, fits my definition of spam.

I am already a duped useful idiot regarding the stage-craft of 9/11 and how evidence was planted, of which the in-tact passport is one. I'd even swallow that the aircraft part found in April 2013 between buildings on Park Place was staged in an attempt to get a part with a serial number into the system. Ah, but Boeing was unable to identify the exact aircraft.

However, a distinction needs to be made on the levels of staging required (or not) at each respective scene, such as the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the WTC. I believe the Pentagon was staged. I believe Shanksville wasn't staged, which is its problem because it wasn't a plane crash, either.

As for the WTC and the topic of this discussion, my premise is that real airplanes were used, which means that staging plane wreckage in front of hundreds of witnesses is not required. What is required is when things don't go as planned, such as when a serial numbered engine is ejected from the towers, then it must somehow disappear. Failing that, the connection must be stymied to acquiring its make, model, and serial number to an aircraft other than the alleged commercial aircraft. If memory serves me, the engine was recycled without rigorous study and detailed reports on where it came from.

Ms. Rae wrote about calculating jollies: "[T]hough calculations are important, let's not throw logic out the window."

I agree, except that what you call "logic" is really your gut instinct and it is still leading you (and your daughter) astray. Calculations, on the other hand, adhere to logic in fundamental ways.

Ms. Rae asked: "Since you are really good at calculations, can you determine what the mass of the object would have to be to get it to fly 1400 feet away?"

Determination of mass is unimportant. A commercial airplane and a bird can both fly or glide 1,400 ft. A billiard ball and a lead ball of the same size could be shot from cannons with the same launching velocity such that they go 1,400 ft.

Mass does not play a role in determining how far it can travel.

Study the generalized trajectory equations again, because there is a reason why mass has been canceled out and doesn't play a role.

The one thing that does play a role and isn't modeled is wind resistance, which acts on surface area and affects momentum. Although a passport and a billiard ball can both be launched at the same velocity, the outcomes for the passport being able to go the distance depend on whether it stayed closed and aerodynamic throughout its flight, or whether it opened and caught more drag from the air.

Ms. Rae wrote: "I agree with what you are saying EXCEPT, all we are concluding is that a RANDOM OBJECT can land at that distance and that velocity. What we have FAILED to prove is WHAT OBJECT landed at that location. Was it an ELEPHANT, A MOUSE, A CAR, A HOUSE......MASS IS CRUCIAL. If we worked mass into the equation, I bet it would not match the mass of the engine and landing gear."

Mass isn't needed in the equation. Were it so, you would have found it in Wikipedia.

I think what you are missing, Ms. Rae, is the fact that damage to 51 Park Place was not trivial. How was it staged? Agents certainly didn't go up there with sledgehammers. Logically, it was hit with something heavy. Logically, its damage was first noted after the 2nd plane hit and before either tower was felled. Logically, the heavy engine, the video showing a smoking mass exit the towers, the videos and radar sets of the planes, and the many testimonies of seeing aircraft parts around the WTC suggest that they didn't need to stage the outcome damage; they needed to stage real planes to hit the towers precisely.

Ms. Rae wrote: "There is no way in hell that landing gear and engine were tossed 1400 feet."

That wasn't logic speaking. That was gut.

I'm sure you've seen the videos that show a streak going by the towers that is claimed to be an F4. Imagine that it was flying at 925 ft and only 122 mph. With the canapy open the pilot could drop the apple from his lunch or a bowling ball or his landing gear (that a mechanic booby-trapped), and they would all be tossed 1,400 ft before hitting the ground.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Starting fires, they had that covered too."

I've studied this in the past. Little evidence has been put forth to substantiate such booby-trapping. In the grand scheme of things, I fail to see how such fires would have been of strategic advantage and would in fact only serve to call attention to the coordinated fashion of events. These fires to me have more the appearance of unplanned side-effects that are such an embarrassment to the operation that they must be ignored in all official reports.

Ms. Rae wrote: "I asked my 4th Grade daughter which object would fall a greater distance: a light object or a heavy object. She knew the lighter object would land further. Why? Because she used logic."

El-oh-el, Ms. Rae. If you don't ask the question properly and if you don't understand it well yourself, you are sure to get the wrong answer. And you did.

Your wording here used the verb "fall", whereby both objects -- a marble and a billiard ball -- would fall at the same gravitational acceleration and therefore for any given period of time would fall the same vertical distance. If each were given the same launch velocity and the same launch angle, they would travel equal distances.

Ms. Rae wrote: "9/11 has messed with our ability to use our logic. I trust heavily on my logic."

You and your daughter prove your first sentence, at any rate.

// Part 1/2

Part 2/2

Ms. Rae wrote: "if mass is not a factor then why wasn't the passport found 1400 feet away?"

Steve Grage and I have both explained that air resistance is a factor.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Free-Fall-and-Air-Resistance
+++ quote
Air resistance is the result of collisions of the object's leading surface with air molecules. The actual amount of air resistance encountered by the object is dependent upon a variety of factors. To keep the topic simple, it can be said that the two most common factors that have a direct affect upon the amount of air resistance are the speed of the object and the cross-sectional area of the object. Increased speeds result in an increased amount of air resistance. Increased cross-sectional areas result in an increased amount of air resistance.

...

The amount of air resistance an object experiences depends on its speed, its cross-sectional area, its shape and the density of the air. Air densities vary with altitude, temperature and humidity.
+++ end quote

Ms. Rae wrote: "You have got to recognize that we didn't prove a landing gear nor an engine could land that far. What we proved is that in order for a random object to land that far it would require that velocity. We must, we must incorporate the mass."

You are correct that I calculated the required launching velocity from a specified hight for a random object to land a certain distance. This launching velocity was significantly less than impact velocity, so is in a reasonable range.

What has been proven is that:

- By two sets of radar data and 44 videos, a real aircraft was flying.
- By testimonies of dozens of witnesses and first responders, real aircraft parts were discovered around the WTC.
- By a series of pictures and videos, a massive part was observed being launched from the tower after impact traveling a velocity similar to what was calculated.
- By a series of pictures, damage was done to a Park Place building from a massive object.
- By a series of pictures (some staged), a massive engine was found upright under a scaffolding.

Ms. Rae, "You have got to recognize" that the case for faking the aircraft impact (at the WTC) is exceptionally weak compared to the case for real aircraft actually impacting the towers.

// Part 2/2

x210 Maxwell C. Bridges : distance and mass are inversely proportional

Dear Ms. Rae,

You wrote: "So this is where I stand with distance and mass. They are inversely proportional. The lighter objects will fall further out than the heavier objects. Do you concur?"

No, I do not.

You are trying to insert the same error as before.

WRONG: force = mass * (velocity/time)

RIGHT: Force = mass * acceleration
RIGHT: Force = mass * (change-in-velocity/t)

Your equation below has no basis in reality as a result of the error above.

dg = Ft/m * sqrt(2gy)

Given that you start from the WRONG equation, your conclusions are daft.

Your "logic" fails you in concluding that given two objects with different mass, the lighter object will be lauched further out. You are confusing the effort required to throw a tennis ball with the effort to throw a shot-put, where naturally 4th graders would say that they could throw the lighter object further. But if the effort was handled (and a "don't-care") to get the objects to equal launching velocities, then which travels farther will depend on how the air resistence acts on its cross-sectional area and shape.

Two objects of equal mass but differing cross-sectional areas and shape, the more aerodynamic one will travel farther.

Two objects of identical cross-sectional areas and shape but of different mass, then what could play a role is air resistance introducing terminal velocity. Generally, terminal velocity is associated with the force of falling being opposed by air resistance (as a function of velocity and cross-sectional area), which at some point balances out. Because it is the force of gravity on the object that must be balanced, mass comes into play. Lighter objects reach vertical terminal velocity quicker than heavier objects (of the same size). The caveat to this is that the height must be sufficient for terminal velocity to be reached.

When talking horizontal movement through air, it is the momentum (mass * velocity) that is being opposed by air resistance as a function of leading cross-sectional area and velocity. Lighter objects (less momentum) have their horizontal velocities reduced by air resistance sooner than heavier objects (of the same size.)

The passport allowed to flap open and flip every which way in flight reaches terminal velocity sooner than a massive engine, so isn't going to go as far.

//

x211 Maxwell C. Bridges : illogical, unreasonable, and in cases flat-out wrong

Dear Ms. Rae,

You are being illogical, unreasonable, and in cases flat-out wrong as you cling to the unsubstantiated premise of no planes at the WTC, that you waffle between them being holograms and missiles, or a combination of the two.

There are 44+ videos of the 2nd plane impacting, some of them quasi-real-time that your premise needs to doctor up. And here's where it falls short. Under the faking premise that you champion, one would assume that they all were on the same page with regards to what the alleged hijacked plane would be, so they would at least have inserted into all those videos the correct looking plane and planted all over the WTC plane parts from the correct make-and-model aircraft.

You write: "By asking my daughter which one would fall a FARTHER distance, that indicates a HORIZONTAL direction. I explained it to her in further detail. I summarized it in here since we all knew what we were talking about."

And you both still got it wrong, because the lighter object will not travel farther.

I wrote: "Steve Grage and I have both explained that air resistance is a factor."

Your snippy reply was: "Well, last time I checked we don't live in a vacuum."

Well then why didn't you include information about air resistance? It was because you didn't and still don't understand it.

I loved this quote from you: "And for being such an intelligent man and not being to acknowledge how preposterous the hunk of metal wedged between the two buildings, the engine under the scaffolding, and the wheel on Rector & West are, I am very inclined to believe that you have been assigned to cover-up the NO PLANES THEORY."

I've already explained what I believe the "preposterous the hunk of metal wedged between the two buildings" was: planted evidence to get a serial numbered part into the system as a back-stop.

The engine under the scaffolding was something I believe they were trying to dispose of, not plant, because it would expose the aircraft as not being the alleged one.

The wheel on Rector & West was from the 1st plane, where it would have had a clear shot (no buildings) to get down West Street, where upon it -- being a rubber tire and inflated -- could have bounced.

I am very inclined to believe that you have been assigned to PROMOTE the NO PLANES THEORY. And you've got squat. The best evidence of holograms presented by you or any other NPT is so full of limitations and holes, it could never be scaled up to handle what video evidence and eye witnesses observed. Worse, it is dependent on a cloaked aircraft (yet another technology) as well as deliberate malframing of the radar data.

Why is it so fucking hard for you to believe that the perpetrators -- who could afford missiles, who could afford nuclear devices, who could afford all sorts of explosives -- wouldn't be able to afford some real planes and wouldn't sacrifice them in the operation?

//

x212 Norma Rae : an infinite number of videos of this hologram

Maxwell Bridges said "There are 44+ videos of the 2nd plane impacting, "
Well guess what, you can get an infinite number of cameras and take an infinite number of videos of this hologram. So your point that there were 44 videos is pointless.

Maxwell Bridges said "they would at least have inserted into all those videos the correct looking plane and planted all over the WTC plane parts from the correct make-and-model aircraft."

Well if it was only one plane, the videos would show the same plane, now wouldn't it. Yet, they don't. So you are ADMITTING that they AREN'T the same plane. You are admitting also that they are not the CORRECT make-and-model.

Maxwell Bridges said "The engine under the scaffolding was something I believe they were trying to dispose of, not plant, because it would expose the aircraft as not being the alleged one."

Why the hell would they want to dispose of the engine in that manner? Why would they want to expose the aircraft is not the alleged one. Aren't they trying to fool the world that Muslims hit the towers with commercial planes? You make absolutely no sense.
4 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges said "The wheel on Rector & West was from the 1st plane, where it would have had a clear shot (no buildings) to get down West Street, where upon it -- being a rubber tire and inflated -- could have bounced."

Bounced there....hahahaha...Can't get yourself to admit it's more likely it was planted there, But you're willing to admit that the landing gear & passport were planted there. You completed toss logic out the window when it crumbles your theory. What's your dealio Mr. Maxwell?

Maxwell Bridges said " it is dependent on a cloaked aircraft (yet another technology) as well as deliberate malframing of the radar data."

Oh really, maybe you should research cloaking. By the time it's in the public eye, it's been in the Top Secret World for years.

Maxwell Bridges said "Why is it so fucking hard for you to believe that the perpetrators -- who could afford missiles, who could afford nuclear devices, who could afford all sorts of explosives -- wouldn't be able to afford some real planes and wouldn't sacrifice them in the operation?"

Because I don't MANIPULATE the evidence to fit my theory. My theory gets formed based on the evidence.

And if they could afford missiles, then they could afford Holograms and Cloaking Jets. And don't forget, you were once a "fucking' hard head that believed in No Planes. Somebody manipulated you to revert backwards.

Atahan Ganduu once you realize there were no planes, how do you go back to believing there were? I think maxwell always believed there were planes

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges You didn't answer my question. If trajectory distances are independent of mass, then they could have planted a head light or an oxygen mask or a pencil or a wedding ring or complete seat or part of a seat, etc at 1400 feet and we should swallow that story too?

x213 Maxwell C. Bridges : the viewing angles alone already exceed the abilities of holograms