Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices

Hide All / Expand All

Truth & Shadows has closed forums that dealt with the themes of Dr. Wood and/or 9/11 nuclear DEW. Most of them had more than run their course with hundreds of comments and been run through the weeds, which other areas of this blog documents. However, due to the bad behavior of the discussion participants, Craig McKee has been hesitant in allowing such discussions in unrelated forums, and has other priorities than creating a forum home for this theme.

But it does come up.

This posting tries an experiment to create an off-list (off Truth & Shadows) place for such a discussion to potentially bloom.

{mcb: This was updated 2015-01-30 to also serve as a venue from Mr. Adam Ruff to go to town with either his original challenge [2015-01-27] or my suggestions for modification.}

Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: Choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all. Keep this crap out of this thread and do not try and derail it again.

For the sake of clarity:
Señor El Once = Maxwell C. Bridges = M. C. Bruecke

---

x2 jeff : Truth is important and remarkably powerful

2014-08-05

August 5, 2014 at 1:26 am

Hello 'der,

I like your enthusiasm for correcting the misinformation about 911. However, the tactics used on the site are in question. Let's talk sometime. How many buildings were destroyed (or more correctly) vanished on that day in New York? Was it three?

I don't think you, or your readers for that matter, have actually read or comprehended Dr. Wood's work. I can cite examples. Many in fact. But maybe that isn't what this site is about. I don't want to waste your time or mine. Therefore, we can have long discussion if you are actually serious about this topic. However, you may not be. It isn't obvious right now. Let me know.

It would be good to go through this in more detail! Truth is important and remarkably powerful.

best,

jeff

---

x3 Señor El Once : doesn't take her efforts far enough

2014-08-05

Dear Mr. Jeff, you wrote:

I don't think you, or your readers for that matter, have actually read or comprehended Dr. Wood's work.

I have. [I'm not Craig McKee.]

Her main problem is that she doesn't take her efforts far enough. How does she power her DEW? She proposed (and then later backed-off into dropping dangling innuendo) Hurricane Erin and Tesla energy from space. Why not nuclear means, because this fits right in with late-3rd-generation / early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices, which ultimately is what Dr. Wood describes, but she don't go there.

The evidence? Look into Dr. Wood's work about the dirt trucked in, spread out, later scooped up, and then trucked out. Classic radiation mitigation techniques, yet her website stops short. Dr. Wood gives very short shrift to the under-rubble hot-spots, which failed but fizzling nuclear devices could explain. To brush off the hot-spots, she relies on government reports on thermal images unquestioned and unchallenged. [All it would take would be to mislabel a thermal image from a much later date like November as being earlier in September.]

A person can't even say there was no radiation, because the major flaws in such a position is that nothing was measured PROMPTLY or systematically, leaving sufficient delay for alpha/beta/gamma radiation from a neutron variant devices to dissipate. The tritium efforts were a joke to cover over the red flag that tritium was even present.

I'm open to the concept that cold-fusion may have powered such multiple DEW devices, but too many gaps are present in explaining it. And if you've got variants of neutron devices in these 4th generation nukes, the need for weaponized cold-fusion might not be there.

You can contact me off-list. Here's a re-purposed FB discussion on the matter that can help you locate me off-list.

//

---

x4 jeff : forensic analysis of Dr. Wood

2014-08-05

August 5, 2014 at 6:05 pm

Ok.

But, I am not sure that discussing how someone might power a DEW of some kind is a central part of the forensic analysis Dr. Wood undertook. Furthermore, and I think she would be the first to admit this, although I can't speak for her, how would she know that? In the book, if you have read it, you would note that it contains a proper engineering analysis using established forensic methods. There is no need to speculate. What does that have to with the seismic data NIST published in their report as an example?

The book and the evidence, which is what I am happy to discuss, take the reader to the point where they can hopefully understand that the tech used on that day does not have a signature that matches any conventional weapon/explosive/mechanical equipment we are familiar with. It needn't go any further, although I do agree that Dr. Wood has searched out some examples that look sort of similar including Hutchison's work. I can say, as a responsible and prudent engineer, and after personally reviewing Hutchison's work, that he has indeed produced some highly unusual results. That is another discussion however. Also, I happen to know how much energy he used so I am quite prepared to discuss that, only with the understanding that it has nothing to do with Dr. Wood's work however.

Dr. Jenkins couldn't grasp that unfortunately. Whether that was a case of him being deliberately obtuse or merely a mental block only he can answer. But, I can assure you, his calculations start out from the wrong place with wrong understanding of the problem. From that point on, his work appears sound. My question is, who would want to read it, when there is such an obvious blunder in the very set up of the problem.

Let me give a simple example. In the potash mining industry you can use drills, crushers and conveyors to retrieve the potash and salt from deep underground and then smash it up in little uneven bits for sale to people who produce food. That takes quite a bit of energy. Every good engineer would know how to calculate how much energy would be needed to run all of those hoists, conveyors, crushers, drills, etc. That would be an important number for someone designing the electrical system or paying the hydro bill. But no one else would really care.

However, you can also use a solution mining tech which dissolves the potash in a brine. The energy requirements are vastly different. Further, one is victorian era tech and other is much more modern system that takes advantage of a natural process which is dissolution of potash into an ionic solution. I can tell, the solution approach uses a fraction of the energy to achieve the same or better results. Jenkins approached the problem like a victorian era engineer. He missed the point entirely. I can't be bothered to look at his stuff beyond explaining how he got wrong. I won't be drawn into this kind of discussion. If you don't know, you don't know and I am not responsible for explain that point to people.

I have question for you. Is your response designed to waste my time or do you have an actual concern that this is a real issue? If the later is true, could you explain why knowing the energy requirements of an private/military domain technology matters in any way to the empirical evidence and engineering analysis Dr. Wood presents. Do you know how much fuel a jet uses crossing the Atlantic Ocean? And do you know how much fuel a fighter jet would use crossing the Atlantic Ocean? Or how much fuel a hot air balloon would use crossing the Atlantic?

I don't think you are being serious. I have looked at some of your posts (not all fortunately). I wonder what your agenda is and I have to ask what is the web site administrator doing using this kind of framework for this sort of study. It clearly opens up the discussion to nut-job bloggers who don't have any idea of what they are talking about and how they waste countless hours in spurious discussion.

If you are serious, then prove it by using reasonable methods to discuss evidence and information that would advance everyone's understanding of an extremely important event.

Best…

---

x5 Señor El Once : Not the place

2014-08-06

Dear Mr. Jeff,

This Dr. Wood / nuclear discussion does not belong under a thread called "About Me [Craig McKee]".

Chances are high that Mr. McKee hasn't even seen your comment yet. He's had other priorities and isn't monitoring the threads as carefully as before.

Moreover, you should know that the themes of Dr. Wood and nuclear devices have been discussed. I won't argue that they have been discussed thoroughly in an A-Z manner. They resulted in many comments, but also brought about some bad behavior in the participants. In my opinion much of that bad behavior was calculated to force the moderator's hand in having to shut down such discussions.

To date, no new forum on Truth & Shadows has been created for these themes, because Mr. McKee has other priorities, and these themes can be so derisive that they turn readers away.

To that end, I am doing something that I don't normally do. I'm promoting a new place on my blog where you and I (and potentially others) can explore these themes objectively and rationally: "Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices".

I have taken the liberty of re-purposing your words to get the discussion going. My response to your lengthy comment from yesterday is the last part of the posting.

If you want to continue this discussion, you can make a comment there.

Further discussion of these Dr. Wood or nuclear themes here on Truth & Shadows will result in them getting purged [... until Mr. McKee sees fit to open a new home for the discussion to bloom.] I harbor no ill-will towards Mr. McKee, even though I am the resident champion of those themes and impacted by the consequences of the bad behavior. If you persist in your promotion here [until such a new venue is open], ~~I~~ will be the one calling it to Mr. McKee's attention.

With the links to my blog, I'm doing (a) Mr. McKee, (b) Truth & Shadows, and (c)_ these Dr. Wood & nuclear themes a valued service. They take this off-list in the hopes of avoiding the purposeful bad behavior while allowing for the arguments to get honed and improved, before a new venue is created on T&S.

Full disclosure: Yes, my blog does give me home-court advantage, and I do moderate the comments before allowing them to be posted. But I'll be objective and fair. Because of this home-court advantage and because it will never be my duty to preserve the entirety of your words, it might benefit you to maintain in parallel your own blog with your version of the discussion.

At any rate, the response to your T&S comment is the last one in the top-level posting. Neither of us should make any more comments in this thread on these themes.

Sincerely,
//

---

x6 Señor El Once : power a DEW is a central

2014-08-06

Mr. Jeff wrote on August 5, 2014 at 6:05 pm

I am not sure that discussing how someone might power a DEW of some kind is a central part of the forensic analysis Dr. Wood undertook.

Forensic analysis undertook by Dr. Wood? I won't belabor the many gaps, omissions, and dangling innuendo in Dr. Wood's so-called "forensic analysis" for it even to be deemed as such. Ample nuggets of truth remain that are good and necessitate objective thinkers' attention. Thus for the sake of discussion, I'll focus on powering DEW.

If the theory can't be reasonably powered in a real world sense, the theory does not progress into the realm of higher probability as being actual. From the physics aspect of it, the pulverizing nature of the destruction combined with free-fall acceleration that were observed indicate a massive energy sink that requires an equivalent energy source in order for the energy equations to be balanced.

Dr. Wood exposes many clues as to potential energy sources, yet stops vastly short of connecting those glaring dots. Her web-pages about the dirt are a prime example: radiation haz-mat procedures. She does an admirable job of pointing out other clues in the crime, such as Hurricane Erin, yet allows her readers' imaginations to be hijacked into associating this as the definitive power source for the destruction. Don't get me wrong; energy from weather is certainly possible. Whether it could be made operational and on the scale required for 9/11 on-demand, is a bit far-fetched particularly when nuclear energy sources that have been developed and tested since WWII would have much easier to come by and align with the unfinished dirt work. The importance of her Hurricane Erin evidence is that the culprits could control the weather by making sure it did not hit NYC. [If they had no control over Hurricane Erin, then FEMA and other emergency responder type groups would not have set up their bases on piers prior to 9/11 but when Erin was still very much a danger.

If you have read it, you would note that it contains a proper engineering analysis using established forensic methods.

I've read her book, cover-to-cover. You overstate your case and don't provide examples.

There is no need to speculate.

No need to speculate, you say? Obviously there was a need to drop dangling innuendo all over the place. Same difference.

What does that have to with the seismic data NIST published in their report as an example?

The seismic data does not rule out late-3rd-generation / early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices. Brief detour, chemical based explosives derive their destructive capacity by rapidly displacing air and generating massive air pressure differentials. The DEW weapons channel their energy at specific output wavelengths, and thus subtract from what energy would be available for, say, a nuclear blast and heat wave. Reduced blast waves -- air pressure differentials -- mean much smaller seismic signals. Still, detonation signatures were part of the seismic record.

The book and the evidence, which is what I am happy to discuss, take the reader to the point where they can hopefully understand that the tech used on that day does not have a signature that matches any conventional weapon/explosive/mechanical equipment we are familiar with.

For revision 1, I agree.

It needn't go any further, although I do agree that Dr. Wood has searched out some examples that look sort of similar including Hutchison's work. I can say, as a responsible and prudent engineer, and after personally reviewing Hutchison's work, that he has indeed produced some highly unusual results. That is another discussion however. Also, I happen to know how much energy he used so I am quite prepared to discuss that, only with the understanding that it has nothing to do with Dr. Wood's work however.

We're on the same page.

Dr. Jenkins couldn't grasp that unfortunately. Whether that was a case of him being deliberately obtuse or merely a mental block only he can answer. But, I can assure you, his calculations start out from the wrong place with wrong understanding of the problem. From that point on, his work appears sound. My question is, who would want to read it, when there is such an obvious blunder in the very set up of the problem.

Yet again, I agree. Dr. Jenkins work was stilted and incomplete. It doesn't debunk Dr. Wood's work entirely, but it does hint where her efforts could be refined. It was a pity that her 2010 book didn't address some of Dr. Jenkins' 2007 criticisms.

Let me give a simple example. In the potash mining industry you can use drills, crushers and conveyors to retrieve the potash and salt from deep underground and then smash it up in little uneven bits for sale to people who produce food. That takes quite a bit of energy. Every good engineer would know how to calculate how much energy would be needed to run all of those hoists, conveyors, crushers, drills, etc. That would be an important number for someone designing the electrical system or paying the hydro bill. But no one else would really care.

That would be an important number to determine whether the endeavor is even cost effective and could achieve any ROI. I disagree that no one else would really care, because too much energy expended in the operation translates into money and affects the bottom-line for venture capitalists whether or not it even gets funded.

However, you can also use a solution mining tech which dissolves the potash in a brine. The energy requirements are vastly different. Further, one is victorian era tech and other is much more modern system that takes advantage of a natural process which is dissolution of potash into an ionic solution. I can tell, the solution approach uses a fraction of the energy to achieve the same or better results. Jenkins approached the problem like a victorian era engineer. He missed the point entirely. I can't be bothered to look at his stuff beyond explaining how he got wrong. I won't be drawn into this kind of discussion. If you don't know, you don't know and I am not responsible for explain that point to people.

Ack.

I have question for you. Is your response designed to waste my time or do you have an actual concern that this is a real issue?

Not a waste of your time. Ample evidence exist that the DEW devices were nuclear powered. The ramifications of this become huge and not so easy for the government to weasel out of. The figurative nuclear fallout from this revelation could, would, should cause a public panic to the point of ripping out by the roots the corrupt systems that enable this: executive leadership, military, MIC, banking, media...

If the later is true, could you explain why knowing the energy requirements of an private/military domain technology matters in any way to the empirical evidence and engineering analysis Dr. Wood presents.

A stabbing happens in your kitchen. It matters if the murder weapon were a Cutco kitchen knife wielded in defense, or if the murder weapon were forged in the garage, honed for weeks into a precision edge, and then deployed like an Indy 500 sewing machine on the victim.

The energy is but one clue that has to be followed to determined HOW it was done, that then clearly limits WHO could have done it (as if we didn't already know).

I don't think you are being serious. I have looked at some of your posts (not all fortunately). I wonder what your agenda is and I have to ask what is the web site administrator doing using this kind of framework for this sort of study. It clearly opens up the discussion to nut-job bloggers who don't have any idea of what they are talking about and how they waste countless hours in spurious discussion.

My agenda is Truth with an upper-case "T". If I'm wrong and can be convinced of such with rational and substantiated arguments, I'll apologize and sing a new tune.

If you are serious, then prove it by using reasonable methods to discuss evidence and information that would advance everyone's understanding of an extremely important event.

Sure thing.

With kind regards

//

---

x7 jeff : My criticism therefore remains in place

2014-08-06 at 10:56 pm

Great. Thanks. My comments stand. If the moderator chooses to remove this text that is fine. it is his site.

At a meta level, having a discussion about Dr. Wood where the emphasis is on her and not her work is kind of what triggered me to write something. Also, without some kind of formal structure, there is just too much nonsense for people to follow it.

For example, in your notes, you haven’t responded to anything I wrote. This kind of tactic, while effective in dissuading readings from taking the discussion seriously, is a complete waste of time.

My criticism therefore remains in place. The person maintaining this site is obviously a sophisticated individual. He undoubtedly has the ability to structure the discussion in a way to limit this kind of thing. It is volition to have or to allow the wild bunch untrammeled opportunities to take pot shots at Dr. Wood’s work.

Your comments are a case in point. On first glance, it sounds like you have a legitimate question about Dr. Wood’s work. But on review, we can see that that isn’t true. The next move is an immediate change of course to a new topic. Ok. But, I would be naive to think that you are not smart enough to be fully cognizant of what is taking place. Hence my response.

If this site is what is purports to be then there should be a legitimate effort to vet Dr. Wood’s work and in light of that effort explore the implications for other so-called truthers. In this regard, this site is an unmitigated failure. That can’t be an accident.

This is the difference between what I am doing and what you are doing. My comments have remained consistent with my initial post. I have stayed on topic.

Let’s take another simple example. Often people state that Dr. Wood used fake photos. Really? This kind of statement should have brought an immediate response from the moderator because it delegitimizes Dr. Wood and her work quite viciously. Yet, those comments are allowed to stand.

If this were true, then there would be proof. Also, as you have undoubtedly noticed, the book uses photos as evidence but is also uses several other sources of information to corroborate that evidence. It is a thorough forensic review.

Making those kind of statements without proof actually looks slanderous to me (I am not a lawyer). What did the moderator do when this occurred?

So in response for your request to move our interaction to another location, I do not accept. There is a reason I put this information in this location. It is a comment on this site! The exchanges we have had are merely examples for clever readers to see what I was concerned about.

The tactics used here a commonplace unfortunately. I can’t and I won’t try to correct this wherever it occurs.

Thanks for taking the time to prove my point!

Best…

---

x8 ruffadam : banned from a 9/11 Truth Facebook forum

2015-01-27

{mcb: improved the formatting.}

January 27, 2015 at 5:09 am

Well here is my conversation with Ken Doc which I am publishing because he banned me from his forum for no reason whatsoever and I don’t particularly like being gagged.

Conversation started Monday
1/26, 12:33pm
Adam Ruff

So now I am banned from the 911 truth group?

1/26, 12:39pm
Adam Ruff

Hard for me to see what you said or respond don’t you think? Oh well good luck to you Ken I guess a conversation is not possible after all. Too bad because Dany and I were actually starting to make some headway towards resolving this “fiasco”.

1/26, 12:51pm
Ken Dockery

The Pentagon issue has nearly destroyed this movement while wasting soooo much time. Not to mention dealing with all the other disinfo. Ive had enough of it Adam. Sorry.

other disinfo, I mean Judy Wood and Holograms
Monday

1/26, 6:40pm
Adam Ruff

We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments. Censorship doesn’t work Ken it just makes you look weak. I did not break any of your rules yet I am censored so whatever man I don’t need to be part of something like that. P.S. You guys who do not know the pentagon evidence are the ones making the issue divisive by the way not us and it is you guys who make it seem complicated too which its not. Anyway have a good life.

1/26, 8:31pm
Ken Dockery

Have a good one to, Please don;t compare T&S to the “largest 9/11 fb forum”. You guys have like 5 active posters, whereas we have 100’s that post and 1000’s that look on.

For you to say that I haven’t debunked Judy Wood or Holograms, means you know nothing about me.

Anyways, peace out.

1:15am
Adam Ruff

Ken did it ever occur to you that if you are so willing to ban me even though I broke none of your rules that your rules are meaningless? Think about it because it is true. If you are willing to silence me for no cause other than I disagree with you on a few issues then aren’t you a dictator imposing a kind of tyranny? In this case a tyranny where only your ideas and those who agree with you get to be heard. Another consideration is that if you silence all those who disagree with you have you really won the argument? I do not think so but perhaps you consider it some kind of victory I don’t know.

BTW: I never said you have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.

As to the relative size of the two forums I can say with pride that T+S is far better than your forum because it isn’t a tyranny and we can and do talk about anything we want. It is the very definition of freedom of speech while obviously your forum is the definition of well… you get the picture.

Gandhi: An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

1:56am
Adam Ruff

As to the pentagon issue “nearly destroying the truth movement” the answer is no Ken. What the pentagon issue has done is expose the fake truthers and separate them from the real truthers. Fake truthers refuse to inform themselves about the pentagon choosing instead to follow cults of personality such as Kevin Ryan or David Chandler. You simply trust that those “leader hero’s” have done the research and come to the right conclusion because you are too lazy to do the research yourself. Well Chandler and Ryan both are dead wrong about the pentagon and have been thoroughly debunked as far as the pentagon is concerned. So you are following the pide piper literally. This is why neither of them will debate the issue in public because they will lose that debate BIG! Real truthers look at the evidence (as much as they can get their hands on) and draw their own conclusions. This is why I can win a debate about the pentagon with anyone who thinks it is too complicated or too divisive. It isn’t complicated at all the problem is you, for whatever reason, simply do not want to face the truth that the plane observed flew North of the Citgo gas station thereby proving the light poles and other damage was staged. It also proves the plane flew over the pentagon and away. It is quite simple really you just don’t want to face the truth for your own reasons. To you it is “divisive” because you do not understand the evidence very well and perhaps you do not want your hero’s (Chandler and Ryan) to be proved wrong (too late because they have been). You are stuck in cognitive dissonance and hero worship. I am not stuck and I can therefore explain rationally and calmly what the evidence is, what it proves, why it is simple, and how devastating it really is to the official narrative of 9/11. I can say with confidence that the pentagon evidence is just as important, perhaps even more so, as the controlled demolitions evidence. Simply put, who else but insiders could plant evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon? That is why it is important Ken, very important! That is also why we cannot just drop the issue because some uninformed or misinformed truthers such as yourself don’t understand it and don’t want to do the research. By your logic we should drop the CD evidence as well because some so-called truthers out there do not understand physics. We don’t want to be divisive right? They think other evidence should be focused on instead of CD. Don’t believe me Ken? Look up Jon Gold then and see for yourself. Anyway I have the very strong suspicion that I am wasting my time talking to you. I hope to be proved wrong.

---

x10 Craig McKee : infighting at 9/11 Truth Movement

2015-01-27

January 27, 2015 at 8:46 am

I cannot believe what has happened since my article came out. Dockery has completely lost it. He “read the riot act” to participants at 9/11 Truth Movement about infighting. He is blaming me for causing infighting even though the whole reason for my objections over there was to stop people like Mike Collins from causing dissension by verbally assaulting people and twisting the Pentagon topic. Now, he has also banned Adam Syed for no reason (that I can see) other than his association with me and with the Pentagon evidence. It really does make one think about the 911blogger experience, even more than when I wrote this article. Unfortunately I’m off to work and can’t provide more detail about what is going on over there until this evening. Un-freaking-believable.

---

x11 hybridrogue1 : thousands of tin horn tyrants holding positions of power in trivial situations

2015-01-27

January 27, 2015 at 10:55 am

Dockery is no different than the thousands of tin horn tyrants holding positions of power in trivial situations. Control freaks like this little shit are always small minded, that is the core of the authoritarian personality. Just give him a bullwhip and the position of the straw-boss on a southern plantation in the 1850’s and you’ve got your template for this goon.
\\][//

---

x12 Señor El Once : request for reasoned analysis

2015-01-27

Mr. Adam Ruff re-posted what he wrote on a Facebook thread or message about his banishment from a Facebook 9/11 Truth forum:

We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments.

If this is the case, I await post-haste the reasoned analysis about why a certain [name known to participants] hobby-horse pony is a discredited theory and bogus. To avoid derailing this thread, Mr. Ruff should publish it or re-publish it -- if we are to believe his prior stellar efforts in this regard exist -- on his blog or Facebook page, and then friend us and publish here on T&S advertising links.

Readers should note that discussion on that [name known to participants] hobby-horse was ~not~ stopped because the opponents offered reasoned analysis as to why it was bogus. No, it was stopped due to the Mike Collins-ish deja vu bad behavior of various participants here.

Mr. Ruff's boasting of his personal exploits continued:

I never said you [Ken Dockery] have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.

I have no intention of cranking a new Dr. Wood discussion. But as the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].

In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I'm not saying that I'm convinced of space beams on these other towers. What I am saying is that a trick in steering the 9/11TM is to show where X doesn't apply to A, and then to falsely imply or extrapolate without proof that X also doesn't apply to B or C either. The exposed agenda is that any discussion of X in any valid context isn't permissible.]

Further, blow-hard Mr. Ruff should give us the text to "some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend."

To my recollection -- unless Mr. Ruff is some other participant's sockpuppet here on T&S -- Mr. Ruff has not participated in any Dr. Wood discussion to a convincing degree where he hasn't turned tail and run, bragging how he "doesn't read my [SEO] comments, skipping right over them". Makes him very deserving of the ridicule that I impose upon him.

Also to my recollection, Mr. Ruff has never personally debunked holograms.

I did, though (starting around 2012-02-24). I followed Dr. Fetzer's rabbit hole and found it lacking in supportive scientific documentation to prove holograms could real-world achieve what was observed. [And the 9/11 hologram argument involved grossly misrepresenting and misinterpreting two sets of radar data.]

I do not expect Mr. Ruff to read -- much less step up to dutifully answer -- my rhetorical challenges for him to cough up his work in debunking all nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's work [and that support my hobby-horse].

I suppose it is one thing for Mr. Ruff to make boastful and dubious claims in other forums, but quite another for him to drag them back here and have us, who lived it, believe them true as if we were just like his rare-earth customers.

The whole point of the above exercise in pushing Mr. Ruff's buttons was to chide Mr. Ruff into being not quite such a hypocrite and to champion truth at all times. Otherwise, his less than truthful endeavors will bite him back.

//

---

x13 ruffadam : choose another venue

2015-01-27

January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm

SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all. Keep this crap out of this thread and do not try and derail it again.

---

x14 Craig McKee : no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion

2015-01-27

January 27, 2015 at 11:46 pm

No worries, I have no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion on this thread.

---

x15 hybridrogue1 : COMMENT REMOVED: some huge amount of verbose bullshit

2015-01-27

hybridrogue1
January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm
{mcb: The original comment was modified by the T&S moderator as follows.}

COMMENT REMOVED

hybridrogue1
January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm

{mcb: Retrieved from email, here's the content of the COMMENT REMOVED.}

Let’s see Craig,

You have “no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion on this thread.”
And yet we are treated to some huge amount of verbose bullshit on the matter by Señor El Once, who is again simply attacking Mr Ruff, using the Wood issue and the handle to his club.

And on this same thread you asked for no more mention of Fetzer, and yet we have this massive tome of turgid trash from Dwil at: dwil -January 28, 2015 at 12:30 pm.

I am not going to bother answering either of these assholes here. But again I am confused if your “requests” not to have certain issues continue here, are simply that, “requests” or are they the actual rules of the game here?
\\][//

---

x16 hybridrogue1 : the agitprop bullshit laid on me

2015-01-28

January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm

Well now that the stew has already boiled over I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.

As you will note, again this anonymous nutjob has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion. We, that is Mr Ruff and I, are his targets. I don’t think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit. What he gets off on is defaming those who have shown him for what he is, an agent of disruption.

As is such I hope Mr McKee will stand to his “requests” that this crap come to an end.
\\][//

---

x17 Craig McKee : I am enforcing my own rules

2015-01-28

January 28, 2015 at 2:37 pm

Let’s see, HR. To make something clear once again. I work during the daytime and can’t deal with comment moderation until I get home. As it is I am blowing my lunch break to deal with this. I really don’t appreciate the implication that I am not enforcing my own rules, particularly when comments, as you know, go up in real time and unmoderated (unless the person posting has never posted here). Are you recommending that I return to having all comments sit until I can approve them? Please let me handle my job, okay?

{mcb: edited.}

---

x18 Señor El Once : COMMENT REMOVED: surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges

2015-01-28

{mcb: The original comment was modified by the T&S moderator as follows.}

THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS ABOUT A CHALLENGE REGARDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TOPIC ON THIS THREAD.



{mcb: Original Comment follows.}

I am surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges, when he wrote:

SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked.

Stay tuned to this message for information on the off-T&S venue chosen.

Because I am a fair and generous fellow in search of understanding, I offer Mr. Ruff choices [A] and [B] as amendments to the original challenges and his anxiously-awaited participation. These modifications come about entirely due to my present state of understanding, whereby neither of us needs to waste time on debunking what we are already more or less agree on.

Specifically, I've debunked holograms myself, as stated and linked in one of my last comments. I don't need more convincing of the same. I would only be interested in such links if it takes me to Mr. Ruff's authored words that make a unique and substantiated argument why holograms were not involved. Otherwise, he shouldn't waste his time. Choice [A] is a modification of Mr. Ruff's proposal, minus hologram planes.

++++ Choice A ++++

Choice [A]: Direct me to where Dr. Wood's work has been debunked. Great if it is page-by-page, but section-by-section (applicable also to sections on web-pages) is a more likely granularity.

He'll get bonus points if some on the list of links to "Dr. Wood debunking" analysis are Mr. Ruff's authored words that make unique and substantiated arguments.

Should Mr. Ruff set up the frame of space beams, he should remember that I'm mostly interested in analysis that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I've already ruled out space beams for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.] If Mr. Ruff's debunking of Dr. Wood starts and stops at space beams and/or doesn't go to those odd-ball towers, however, he fails.

The only reason I'm entertaining Choice [A] is that no one has comprehensively analyzed Dr. Wood's work [nor rescued those pesky nuggets of truth]... other than my piddly and humble efforts, I guess. If Mr. Ruff actually found such and can provide a comprehensive set of the links, excellent news for the 9/11 Truth Movement! Mr. Ruff does us a great service! Woo-hoo!

Because I only champion the nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work and re-purpose them in my 4th generation arguments, this suggests a way for Mr. Ruff's efforts to be focused in a reasonable and logical manner. He knows where I'm headed. Otherwise, if he doesn't heed this directional detail, he could find himself going off on a complete derailment (or straw-man) over areas of Dr. Wood's work that have no or little bearing to the deviant nuclear considerations, which is my overt agenda.

Further, debunk the nuggets, or acknowledge them as nuggets of truth. Be aware that each acknowledged nugget of truth could necessitate re-evaluation of prior beliefs, if Mr. Ruff is exhibiting true objectivity and integrity.

If Mr. Ruff comes up with zero nuggets, he fails, because nuggets of truth are the foundation of all disinformation. A result of zero nuggets will shoot Mr. Ruff's objectivity all to hell in the eyes of the latter-day lurker readers / judges. Such a lashing is avoidable, but requires learning from the mistakes of Mr. Ruff's rogue companions.

++++ OR ++++

++++ Choice B ++++

Choice [B]: Mr. Ruff should slap a saddle on my old hobby-horse, Neu Nookiedoo, and take 'er for a spin or two around the coral before headin' up to the high country. The saddle bags can store the nuggets of truth collected from all sorts of disinformation sources along the way.

Mr. Ruff, you and the readers should know that 4th generation nuclear devices is my present state of understanding about some of the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction, my hobby-horse, my holy grail, the mindset that needs to be corrected if I'm to sheepishly return to the fold of mainstream 9/11 Truth.

I choose [B] and will probably bring my discussion around to [B] even if you attempt the [A] Dr. Wood distraction. [B] is what Dr. Wood left out of her book, what Dr. Jones left out of his analysis, what fits the evidence, what fits the song & dance and dog & pony show up and down the media circus, and what merits the much bigger disinfo campaigns in forums at suppression and at sidelining via ridicule as opposed to reasoned argument. Hell, we already have one proven-objectivity-challenged participant trying to put the skids on such discussions happening even off-list [which is my objective], by calling foul to the moderator:

[T]his anonymous nutjob [SEO] has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion... I don't think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit... I hope Mr McKee will stand to [SEO's] "requests" that this crap come to an end.

Neu Nookiedoo is a hobby-horse. Therefore, the "nookiedoodoo bullshit" is ridicule coming from another bullshitting source, like the very one who gets credit for helping coin the hobby-horse's namesake.

I care about Neu Nookiedoo very much, and contest any such disingenuous comments that suggest I don't. Of course, if Mr. Ruff et al is successful in those off-list endeavors at convincingly debunking the premise with substantiation, I won't be flogging that dead horse no mo'. I'll change my belief, apologize to the public, and move on.

Choice [B] says to not waste such unstructured time on Dr. Wood's work, because to do so would be to create an unnecessary, time-sucking, distraction that could run your objectivity through the wringer if integrity is lacking. Plus, if you don't find the requisite, comprehensive debunking section-by-section (that also has the moxie to acknowledge nuggets of truth) -- like a hybrid failed to achieve before you --, then this exercise will deflate significantly your boastful claims and reflect poorly on your character.


Mr. Ruff wrote:

choose another venue

With one caveat, I choose my blog (some links below). I promise to be a fair and impartial moderator, publishing your remarks as long as they remain reasonable. In the next few days or week, I'll create an entry with re-purposing of comments here to serve as an introduction and starting point. The discussion can go then forth in the comments there under.

The caveat from above about my choice in venues? Mr. McKee is welcome to host an article on T&S where the discussion can happen. [It would be a most interesting experiment to see who shows up and what arguments they make.]

Because I am fair, I want my debate opponents to be as knowledgeable as possible in what my beliefs are and what evidence substantiates them, so they will know "what" to attack [and not "who"]. In that spirit, I call Mr. Ruff's attention to these.

A 2014-04-13 comment with the title "sick of SEO claiming we have not done so" is a direct response to some burrs that Mr. Ruff tried to insert under Nookiedoo's saddle. It was not published on T&S. Curious readers and serious debate opponents should follow some of the rabbit hole links contained therein.

I haven't had a chance to write the revision and extension of an article intended for VT but never published there, "Nuclear 9/11/2001 (for VT)", but it is on my list of things to do. However, I linked the 2014-01 article because it lays down a foundation of truth nuggets mined from lots of (disinfo) sources that remain valid as my beliefs shifted into 4th generation nuclear mechanisms.

Thus, if Mr. Ruff finds issue with something on my blog relating to these themes, he can make a comment directly there.


++++ More Fair Advice ++++

Write your response off-list in an editor. Save it locally, so that you'll have it to re-purpose other places. [You don't want my blog to be the sole repository of your excellent words. CYA.] Record a list of links on where you posted it, otherwise you'll defeat your stated purposes of dispatching future discussions of this sort with a mere go-to URL.

Take your time. Complete your thoughts and make a big case. Be logical and thoroughly. Starting with a copy of my works could be the structure and framework needed to debunk it, point-by-point.

Because the size of each comment on my blog is restricted by Blogger, be prepared to divide up your big response off-list with "Part x/N" reader affordances so that that readers will know to look for all parts of a multi-part response.

Minor HTML mark-up goes a long way to making a polished presentation that is easier to read.

++++ Summary ++++

Mr. Ruff can start to put together his all-star comments and links to the same. If Mr. Ruff takes a week or more to craft a more perfect debunking production, that would really help me out time-wise. I could be nudged to completing that aforementioned revision and extension of my previous belief into 4th generation nukes as a new blog entry, and that could be where our rational discussion continues.

P.S. To Mr. Rogue. You claim that I attack Mr. Ruff!

No, I am holding Mr. Ruff accountable for his boastful statements that I don't think were honest particularly with respect to the extent of his personal efforts. I want him to have some integrity and not be such a hypocrite. I'll hold his feet to the fire, because, -- GOD DAMN IT -- the effort will strengthen the truthful arguments, be they his or mine or both. [If they're his, I've got the integrity to admit and acknowledge such.]

In case you didn't notice, Mr. Ruff promises to finally set the record straight on [A] but hopefully [B], something you were spectacularly incapable of in the most agitprop sort of ways. For the 9/11 Truth Movement's sake, let's hope that Mr. Ruff isn't stepping into some of his own blow-hard bullshit.

Off-list, Mr. Rogue, on my home court. You can come play, too. I'll be fairer to your words than you are to mine.

By the way, Mr. Rogue, your "January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm" comment -- quick on the heels of your "January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm" REMOVED COMMENT -- was purposely made where it doesn't belong. And... *boo-hoo*... It wasn't very kind to me! *sob*

It all is like Albert Einstein's theory of relatively. From your perspective:

I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.

Relative to my perspective and underscored by your ridiculing efforts in this very thread (and the larger picture of how your antics have long resembled those of Mr. Mike Collins), the source of the agitprop bullshit was the other way around.

Proof of this was your inability to avoid the spot-on, discrediting dings to your objectivity and integrity ... by having some. On stupid shit, no less. Don't believe me? Check out the lack of cyber-qualifiers on the expression "our resident stalker, Señor". Without such, you make a serious charge with far-reaching criminal implications that has no bearing in reality or truth. Careless in the small things; careless in the big as well.

++++ TO BE CONTINUED OFF-LIST ++++

... unless otherwise sanctioned by Mr. McKee.

//

---

x9 Señor El Once : This is the venue

2015-01-30

Dear Mr. McKee,

Your lunch hour was well spent moderating the comments to this thread, which included one of mine. Kudos, and no hard feelings.

However, Mr. Adam Ruff was clearly begging for a venue where he could go to town:

[C]hoose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. ... So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all.

Your editing left out possible URLs for that, so that my earnest desires -- and those of Mr. Adam Ruff -- to not derail T&S could be fulfilled. As luck would have it, I still had a thread created from 2014-08-06 intended for die-hard Dr. Wood supporter, Mr. Jeff.

- Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices

Alas, after Mr. Jeff's few comments on T&S to stir the pot, he was a no-show on my thread.

The thread remains an excellent place for Mr. Adam Ruff to "school me correctly." I encourage him to use it.

Let's hope that Mr. Adam Ruff does better than Mr. Jeff and at least shows up to carry out that which he has been boasting. I'll give him a reasonable amount of time (until March 2015) to compose his glorious work.

//

---

x20 Señor El Once : saving face and the pickle you're in

2015-02-06

Dear Mr. Ruff,

You know me as Señor El Once, or SEO, on Truth & Shadows. You gave Mr. McKee permission to pass your contact information to me.

I make no excuses for my delay in contacting you directly, on top of Mr. McKee's delay in performing his match-making services. I'm busier than ever with other priorities, thereby demonstrating the priority I give to cranking the "rhetorical challenge."

It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in. Pickle? Yes, many-fold so.

For starters, you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I'm having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme "boastful lying hypocrite" etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse.

Secondly and maybe more importantly, Dr. Wood's (Dr. Jones) efforts didn't go the distance required and to all the proper corners. The abrupt stops that several of their research venues make is a clue, because rational logic thought-momentum in those directions naturally would have the inquisitive and curious mind step precisely into Neu Nookiedoo, 3rd and 4th generation.

Thirdly, Dr. Wood's work can't be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. "Faithful in the small, faithful in the large..." It can be a risk to your character if mishandled.

Therefore, I hope that you will consider my proposed modifications to the parameters of our discussion, as given at this link:

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18

The above blog entry re-creates the T&S discussion as an introduction. It includes comments that you might have missed, owing to Mr. McKee's moderation efforts. You should give those removed comments a read. The x18 comment "Señor El Once : COMMENT REMOVED: surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges" offers to scope limit your efforts and not have you do busy work.

Be that as it may, the comments that we make below the introduction would then be our discussion realm.

I would rather have you choose option [B] and attempt to debunk 4th generation nukes. Were we to tango through Dr. Wood's tulips, this is the topic that stops her short. Also stops Dr. Jones short.

A few addendum to that x18 comment.

- I've got many things in my life in flux at the moment. I'm not eager to get involved in a time-sucking discussion, particularly if I start detecting disingenuous arguments, lack of acknowledgment of truth nuggets, and overall lack of objectivity.

- I'll applaud and cheer every substantiated nugget of disinformation that you or your research brings up. But that research and analysis is expected to go the distance A-to-Z.

- I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with "liar, cheat, and weasel," because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. But as was substantiated, he earned those valid assessments of his character that made him an untrustworthy participant.

- I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. Learn from Mr. Rogue's mistakes by doing the opposite of what he done. Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]

- The test of your objectivity -- and that of your sources -- is measured in nuggets of truth acknowledged and re-purposed from disinformation vehicles.

I assigned a deadline of March 1 for your results. If you need more time, make notification of such. Endeavor to be above board and honest regardless of what you attempt.

This being said, I repeat: "It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in."

I'm open to suggestions.

If your heart isn't into it? Even though I'm burned out on 9/11, don't under-estimate the religious fanatic in me. Fanatical about Truth. If you're not into it, back out now.

All the best, Mr. Ruff.

//

---

x21 Adam Ruff : who has who beaten

2015-02-06

{Email from Mr. Adam Ruff.}

Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?

Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory?

First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers. So I would like you to define for us all:


1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities? Was it a particle beam? A laser? A rail gun? An x-ray beam? A sonic weapon? A super mondo cool (Hutcheson) beam made up of future tech stuff us mortals cannot understand? What type of weapon was it?

2. Was it space based or ground based when it was supposedly used on the towers?

3. What are the power requirements for this weapon and from where did the power come?

4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?

Once you can provide some answers to these basic questions I can provide the promised debunks of her theory (whatever it actually is).

Sincerely,

Adam Ruff

PS. I have BCC'ed a few people who will be kept informed of this "debate" but who do not want to engage in it.

---

x22 Señor El Once : post to the venue

2015-02-06

{Email to Mr. Adam Ruff sent from smartphone.}

Please post that as a comment to the blog whose URL was given.

Also, you need to specify the amendment to the challenge that you're taking on. So we will know what is in and out of bounds.

Dr. Wood is easy to frame. I suggest we go right to nookiedoo, and when appropriate, I'll insert evidence collected (or put on display) by Dr. Wood. I'm not going to waste my time defending all her rabbit side tunnels.

//

---

x23 Señor El Once : according to Wood?

2015-02-08

{Response to Mr. Adam Ruff's email.}

Dear Mr. Ruff,

I do declare, but you should pay heed to the biblical edict to be faithful in the small things first, before big things are entrusted to you. What are latter-day lurkers going to think of you in our discussion when (1) after you asked for a public venue, you are a no-show in making comments there?

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html

(2) You response shows little indication that you've read my words. Specifically, my x18 entry above asks for some reasonable scope-limits to your efforts via options on which I've gotten no outright selection or objection: [A] Dr. Wood + Holograms; [B] Dr. Wood alone; [C] Neu Nookiedoo.

You wrote:

Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?

I know I do, and this is evident by the way you frame the strawman.

Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory? First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers.

Indeed. This was a major criticism of Dr. Wood's work that I have already written about many times. Her book does not connect together in any cohesive fashion any of the varied concepts brought up. Neither her book nor website definitively tells us the nature of the device.

You go on to write:

So I would like you to define for us all:

1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities?

I need not go any farther than this in torching your Dr. Wood strawman, well before you get a chance to knock it down and parade around as faux-hero. The phrase "according to Dr. Wood" flags your disingenuous intent right from the get-go, because owing to your first identified problem of Dr. Wood having no defined theory, it becomes a fool's errand to defend Dr. Wood in her non-statements about specific types of weapons used.

Removing the phrase "according to Dr. Wood" and slapping a saddle on Neu Nookiedoo, I can proceed in answering your inquiries about the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. In the process, Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Harrit among others will get skewered, because they demonstrate such a lack of an engineer's curiousity in researching and exploring nuclear solutions to the observed WTC events.

- Dr. Wood has a whole web page devoted to the fresh dirt observed being trucked in, spread out, then a few days later scooped up and trucked out. Classic radiation mitigation techniques. Yet she doesn't go there. She doesn't address tritium. Doesn't address in any real-world what could power her devices, and gives nuclear means the bum's rush.

- Dr. Jones in his article that attempts to debunk nukes DOES NOT EVEN MENTION neutron devices or any 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices. This is on top of relying on flawed and scope-limited reports as the final authority on tritium and radiation. Garbage in, garbage out.

- Dr. Harrit even in his recent interview with Mr. McKee talks about the results of the RJ Lee study of the dust from the lobby of Banker's Trust and how it contained a high percentage of iron spheres. He tries on the shoes of nano-thermite and says these could have been the result of a thermitic reaction, but neither he nor Dr. Jones walks in them far enough to estimate the initial quantities in question, which would be massive. Dr. Harrit does not ever put on the shoes of 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices and walk around in them to see if they can account for the evidence.

You parrot some of the same questions as Dr. Harrit in his McKee interview: "Was it a particle beam? A laser? An x-ray beam?" Good questions. Why didn't Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, or Dr. Wood attempt to answer them?

You asked:

Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality?

Why, yes there is. From a Google search, eventually these items came up:

- http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf

- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071

The second link is to "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects." Although written in 2005, the author Andre Gsponer co-authored in 1999 a book called "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons." Do the math with regards to 9/11/2001.

- http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/700503.Fourth_Generation_Nuclear_Weapon

Public and university libraries do not have their databases in Google. A person on site at just about any university's engineering, math, and physics library will be able to dig up mountains of more references -- books, technical journals, etc. -- that specify at the time of writing where various nuclear technologies were at and where research was heading. [These would be the public records, and not anything hidden behind national security labels.]

Yet seemingly none of the professors listed above could be bothered to perform such research in their universities' libraries. Even a failed venture to find plausibility of neu nookiedoo in the (public) nuclear research is a result worthy of publication and promotion, kind of like a hypothesis that testing disproved. However, this wasn't done, because the venture wouldn't have been a failure; it would have netted Andre Gsponer's work and that of many others.

You might find this re-purposed Facebook discussion of interest:
- http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html

++++ quote from 0510071v5.pdf

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


According to me (and not Dr. Wood), each tower had 6 or so devices of the 3rd and 4th generation nature. Each was fusion based, leaving little lingering radiation. Each probably had elements related to neutron devices, because aiming various amounts neutrons out of the way would help scale down side-effects (blast wave, heat wave, EMP) and prevent the pre-mature killing of neighboring tandem devices.

Further, these devices would direct energy at specific wavelengths, that further takes away energy from side-effects and neutron output. What wavelengths? Weapons that used X-ray wavelengths are known to exist and were speculated in the Reagan presidency. Here's where the fun comes in for diligent researchers. They can pick representative sample wavelengths across the spectrum of energy to (mentally) test what would happen to materials. Of interest is when wavelengths are on the order of, say, molecular distances or when multiple wavelengths are output whose interference pattern could be destructive (which then puts it into the realm of Hutchison.)

Even wavelengths in the microwave realm could produce with sufficient amplitude interesting outcomes. For instance, concrete, drywall, and porcellan have residual amounts of water buried in their structure. Sufficiently large microwaves could turn such water instantly into steam with a very strong outward force to the point of blowing apart the structure that contained it. Concrete has aggregates as well that act like a fork in a microwave oven.

Dr. Harrit has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Although not a physicists, he should have sufficient knowledge of atomic structures to speculate knowledgeably about what sudden influxes of energy at various wavelengths would do. Molecular disassociation and dustification might be applicable in the description.

I find it very disingenuous of Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones (and many leaders of the 9/11TM with science or engineering backgrounds) to not attempt the research and to not attempt strapping on nuclear shoes and go for a stroll.

You wrote:

4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?

I ask the same questions about nano-thermite devices. Sure, thermite has a long history. (So do nuclear devices, although most of it is classified.) But ramping up thermite to achieve the brissance required for pulverization, where's the real-world example of that? And when you cough up such a device, ask yourself if it could then go the distance with regards to the duration of hot-spots attributed to it? And if so, how much of that ramped up super thermite would be required?

Other than the above being a glaring flaw in the limited hang-out known as "nano-thermite", your inability to produce real-world, operational NT devices does not prevent you from speculating into its 9/11 involvement. I expect the same leeway for 4th generation nukes. Your #4 questions are not gating.

//

---

Hide All / Expand All