Maxwell C. Bridges: Debunking NPT@WTC

2016-06-09

Debunking NPT@WTC

Rabbit-Hole Warning! This entry publishes part 2 through part 4 as a continuation of Facebook (and email) discussions on the theme of NPT@WTC (no plane theory at the WTC on 9/11). As I wrote to Dr. James Henry Fetzer:

Debunking NPT at the WTC is not my 9/11 hobby-horse; FGNW is. I only do it as a favor to a fellow duped useful idiot who prides himself on being objective enough to let himself get duped another way with new informaion and/or properly applied science and logical analysis.

Patterns are evident, which includes:
(1) Purposeful insufficient understanding of physics.
(2) Not grasping the significance of velocity-squared in the kinetic energy equation.
(3) Malframing the outcomes of high velocity physics in terms of low velocity vehicle crashes. "Shatter then bounce" versus "bounce as cohesive whole"
(4) Malframing the structural nature of the towers, energy required for tower penetration, and resistance to penetration once outer walls were breeched.
(5) Not acknowledging deficiencies & attacking the messenger.

For references purposes, here is published Part 1 that isn't included with this set.

Part 2: FB Rosalee Grable's NPT

{mcb:

Rosalee Grable claims that she was the first to discover NPT @ WTC. It was interesting trying to learn what held her to this belief, and if she would change her view when confronted with new information.

mcb: end}

x73 Maxwell C. Bridges : September Clues, a very slick (dis)information effort

2015-09-21

x74 Maxwell C. Bridges : digital images extracted from video

2015-09-21

x75 Maxwell C. Bridges : digital manipulation extent

2015-09-21

x76 Maxwell C. Bridges : MythBuster's video is very useful

2015-09-22

x77 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTC plane parts not planted

2015-09-22

x78 Maxwell C. Bridges : wall assembly with aircraft wheel embedded

2015-09-22

x79 Maxwell C. Bridges : backside of WTC-1

2015-09-22

x80 Maxwell C. Bridges : backside hole got explained

2015-09-22

x81 Maxwell C. Bridges : why did the NPT meme get started?

2015-09-22

x82 Maxwell C. Bridges : Rosalee Grable cartoon universe

2015-09-23

x83 Maxwell C. Bridges : when velocities are small

2015-09-23

x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : laws of motion only with low velocity

2015-09-23

x85 Maxwell C. Bridges : most you can logically conclude about alleged planes

2015-09-23

x86 Maxwell C. Bridges : Rosalee Grable predates Simon Shack by at least 5 years

2015-09-23

x87 Maxwell C. Bridges : 4 planes of some kind crashed at the 4 location

2015-09-27

x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : agents to pick up errant identifiable pieces

2015-09-27

x89 Maxwell C. Bridges : on board with some fabrication and staging

2015-09-29

x90 Maxwell C. Bridges : on board with no-planes until discovered holes, worms, and rot in the material

2015-09-29

x91 Maxwell C. Bridges : hollow towers hollow

2015-09-29

x92 Maxwell C. Bridges : We only support twitter-style sound-bites & hypnosis in our comments

2015-09-29

x93 Maxwell C. Bridges : other factors were in play to help enable complete penetration

2015-09-29

x94 Maxwell C. Bridges : discounting the velocity-squared term

2015-10-01

x95 FB Participants : cling to impossible lies, whine or caterwaul

2015-10-08

x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : outside the category of "civil debate"

2015-10-08

x97 Maxwell C. Bridges : explain the difference in kinetic energy when velocity v2>>v1

2015-10-08

x98 Maxwell C. Bridges : no easy way of testing or observing high-velocity physics

2015-10-09

x99 Maxwell C. Bridges : clearly belligerent misunderstanding of things

2015-10-09

x100 Philip Joy : depends whether you treat the WTC walls as immovable solids

2015-10-12

x101 Maxwell C. Bridges : functional realities of the towers

2015-10-12

x102 FB Participants : Nothing counters those statements

2015-09-13

x103 Maxwell C. Bridges : sufficient to fracture and shatter pieces of the aircraft

2015-10-13

Part 3: FB Shiela Casey's NPT

{mcb:

I have had on Truth & Shadows earlier discussions with Shiela Casey. After I went into exile, I'd seen several comments on T&S relating to NPT @ WTC but was unable to reply. She was Dr. Fetzer's "yes-man" on a stray comment about NPT.

At one point on Facebook, she responded to something that Mr. McKee wrote and I was able to open a dialog.

mcb: end}

x105 Maxwell C. Bridges : you seem to support NPT and 9/11 holograms

2016-01-11

x106 Sheila Casey : shouldn't everything they've promoted be questioned?

2016-03-29

x107 Maxwell C. Bridges : why I changed my NPT position

2016-03-29

Dear Ms. Casey, Full-disclosure: I was an active participant on T&S under the "Senor El Once" alias. I was banned for a pre-crime; that is, not for anything that I had actually done at that point but for what I couldn't promise not to eventually do (bring up FGNW, because it is where truth leads me). But that itself wasn't the real reason IMHO; I was banned as a pre-crime of the bad behavior expected of my opponents (primarily hybridrogue1 & ruffadam) when I eventually would have snuck FGNW in side-ways. Since then, my posting privileges haven't been restored, but I am allowed to subscribe to the discussions.

At any rate, you were one of the participants from a couple months ago or longer that I had been hoping to dialog with.

When you look into nuclear weapons, make sure you bookmark my blog entry (and not this Facebook page). You can make comments there.

On the nuclear front, recognize up front that a lot of disinformation has been spread: Dimitri K. with his deep underground nukes, Dr. Wood with "beams from space", and Dr. Jones by framing things as large nukes and never mentioning FGNW. To fill the void, he gave 911TM nano-thermite.

I don't question the involvement of NT, because arguing mutually exclusivity of any mechanism of destruction is a fool's errand and aids disinformation. But I do question whether it was the primary mechanism, and doesn't address the nuclear residue that leaks out of all reports.

Some might label my work "disinformation", but if it is wrong, it is "misinformation." I will gladly offer apologies and modify my views when new information or analysis (that correctly apply science, etc.) merits such.

// Part 1/3

Part 2/3
Ms. Casey asked: "why you changed your mind about no planes at the WTC."

I changed my mind for three reasons:

(1) Ample evidence exist of real aircraft parts. The landing gear in particular that went through the impact side and then ripped an entire wall assembly off of the back side to land in the street, photographed before either tower came down: this would not have been so easy to fake. And if you were going to fake it or the ejecting engine that landed at Church & Murray, you would at least use something of the right make & model.

(2) A deciding factor for me was the 3D model of New York that overlayed most of the amateur video perspectives and proved that they not only were co-linear with one, but in agreement (within their tolerances) with two sets of radar data from two different radar systems.

(3) I went down the September Clues rabbit hole, and was duped something fierce. In my objective research, I found deceit at the core. They had disinfo objectives of making the 911TM look crazy and to doubt all imagery, but had nothing to fill the voids of why or how.

All disinfo has one or more self-destruct mechanisms. Disinfo doesn't care about the numbers of believers it has, because all eventually become disbelievers when they discover the purposeful deceit. The goals of disinfo is to remove from public consideration various nuggets of truth that formed the valid and believable foundation of the disinfo premise.

Took me awhile to discover what was wrong with NPT. I was really only in it from the perspective of "imagery manipulation." When I discovered #1 and #2 above, I was turned.

Holograms I debunked with Dr. Fetzer right from the get-go. I objectively researched it and discovered that it has major technical issues that make it incapable of achieving the observed outcomes from many different perspectives. Were it as they stated, we'd have Holo-Santa and Holo-Elvis at the mall.

Turns out that Rich Hall (someone Dr. Fetzer references and a disinfo agent in England with some highly produced show) deliberately misrepresents the radar data and their tolerances. He says there was a cloaked plane projecting a hologram plane. The cloaked plane was supposedly picked up by one set of radar data, but not the other. The hologram plane flew the other set of radar data, which would only be possible if the data was faked. The reality is that radar only gives readings from pings off of real objects. If one system picked up the cloaked plane, both would. Neither system should pick up the radar signature of a hologram. ASSUMING holograms could be projected (which they can't) and ASSUMING a plane could be cloaked to the level required.

To sum up, not only did I eventually discover the technical limitations of such systems, but the proponents of such were also intractible: unable to admit error, became beligerent when their science was questioned, could not mold their beliefs beyond their disinfo message like a real person would when confronted new info & analysis comes to light.

I went around with Dr. Fetzer (and harbor no ill will), but also on FB with disinfo trolls Norma Rae and Rosalee Grable. If you have my FGNW blog article bookmarked, you can look in the archives over the last year or so (not that many) to see my re-purposed discussions.

You wrote: "I feel certain that the video we were shown of a plane slicing into the south tower is fake."

I am not so certain. The Sandia F4 video and the MythBuster rocket-snow-plow were instrumental in also helping change my mind. When velocities are very high, the velocity squared term in the energy gets exponentially high, such that it can overwhelm the structural integrity locally of the materials in the vehicles (or towers).

I don't doubt that a plane could achieve penetrating impact. What I doubt, from the sea-level velocity and precision of impact, is that the plane was the alleged commercial aircraft.

You wrote: "Given the dense web of steel beams and concrete floors that the plane would have impacted, it should have crumpled and fallen into the street."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation in all aspects.

The walls were not solid; 50% of the face was composed of window slits. The floors were about 13 feet apart. The wall assemblies were not solid steel. Box columns were created from four steel plates (thickness varied) say 1.5 feet wide by 30 feet long. Three box columns were assembled into a wall assembly with spandrels. The wall assemblies were connected to one another by bolts, a designed in failure point.

Yes, the beams of the wall assemblies and the floors could act to slice-and-dice the plane... until they themselves in an equal-and-opposite fashion were compromised. Once compromised (or if we're talking window slits), nothing really substantial except space hindered the progress of the aircraft (unless they hit the core columns).
// Part 2/3

Part 3/3
Going back to the Sandia & MythBuster reference, they prove that if the velocity of the projectile is sufficiently high, the exponential resulting energy can exceed locally the structural integrity of the materials in question -- be they box columns, wings, or fuselage.

A key point is that if the material's structure integrity has failed locally (e.g., shattered), the greater assembly made up of that material can no longer be expected to act as a cohesive whole. The laws of physics still apply, but "bouncing" would happen on shattered fragments (and did, when mass behind the shattered fragment didn't push it path of least resistence into the towers); bouncing would not be expected on wing or tail assemblies. Another area where the NPT misrepresent physics.

Compare low velocity parking lot fender benders to single car accidents on highways to head-on car accidents on highways. Velocity square imparts more energy as the collision velocity increases, which then results in far more shattering and shredding of materials in the vehicles. The velocity of the 9/11 aircraft was >2.5 larger than some of the highest closing velocities of head-on crashes, which is >6 times the available energy.

At this point, look closely at the damage. The aluminum cladding showed wing-tip to wing-tip damage, Road-Runner style. The box columns did not; it is a much smaller damange area. Areas with heavy engines and landing gears were sufficient to push wall assemblies out of the way, break bolts, bend box columns, and in some rare cases sever box columns. The NPTers like to malframe this information with their "cartoon-outline" comments.

You wrote: "But it doesn't even slow down."

This is a misstatement. The aircraft does slow down, but the frame rate of the videos is insufficient to detect this. Further, even in getting shattered, the leading edges imparted sufficient energy to move, bend, or cut tower structure out of the way of material in the aircraft behind that leading edge.

You asked: "Curious Maxwell whether you believe that video to be authentic."

This is a different question. I do not put it past disinformation sources like September Clues to not have multiple agendas. I may have already mentioned the goal of taking off of the table of future consideration valid instances of no-plane-crashes, such as at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

A secondary agenda of September Clues -- once it imploded or was discredited -- could have been taking off of the table of future consideration all valid instances of imagery manipulation. I believe nuggets of truth still exist there. I know of two such valid instances: (1) The Pentagon frames; (2) The four different versions of the helocopter shot of the 2nd plane hitting the tower: (a) nothing then explosion, (b) orb flying path then explosion; (c) plane flying path then explosion; (d) sky / background masked and plane inserted flying different trajectory then explosion. [Disinfo agent Rich Hall, from above, prior to his hologram song-and-dance, tried to tilt the orb videos into advanced weaponry based on UFO technology. What a hoot!]

An additional nugget of truth from September Clues was the unprecedented sharing -- or single-feed from agency sources with foreknowledge -- of action shots of the towers between competing television networks, although seemingly differentiated by color hue and artificial tilting.

Imagery manipulation may have been actively deployed for two reasons, both stemming from foreknowledge of mechanisms chosen. (1) If the plane wasn't the alleged commercial aircraft, they could have post-doctored the imagery to fit their story. (2) Nuclear devices might have been even more energetic or "flashy" than they were, so being able to contain or edit some of that would have been part and partial to controlling the message.

// Part 3/3

x108 Maxwell C. Bridges : flippant or worse

2016-03-30

Part 4: Dr. James Fetzer's NPT

{mcb:

Dr. James Henry Fetzer already has a reputation. Some of it deserved, and some of it not.

mcb: end}

x110 Maxwell C. Bridges : update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction

2015-05-18

Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances!

I've corresponded with you in the past on topics related to 9/11. I wanted to give you an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction. My hobby-horse is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW).

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html

The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.

++++ Boring details ++++

Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:

(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.

(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.

(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.

(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.

(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.

I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.

Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).

It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.

The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.

What you do with this is up to you. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.

//

x111 Maxwell C. Bridges : The Real Deal Ep #100 gets its NPT debunked

2016-05-19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65H8XbrQHBg
The Real Deal Ep # 100 The 9/11 Crash Sites with Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine (ret.)

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

I am most of the way through The Real Deal Ep # 100. I was intriqued with the Pentagon dumpster fires billowing smoke to mask what was really going on (e.g., no plane). I am completely on board with the premise that neither the Pentagon nor Shanksville exhibited real plane crashes. The real plane at the Pentagon did a low flyover. Of those who observed the plane, few actually saw it hit; they merely extrapolated low-flying plane and subsequent smoke/explosion at the Pentagon (and WTC plane impacts) into being a plane crash. Further from my research efforts, I suspect that a construction trailer at the Pentagon housed the missile that bore holes through several walls of the Pentagon rings.

In my opinion, Episode #100 starts going into the weeds at 1:14:00, because you have your physics wrong and are not extrapolating the important lessons from both the Sandia F4 crash video and the MythBuster Rocket-Wedge video. Namely, the energy available at impact depends on a velocity-squared term. The higher the velocity, the exponentially larger the available energy.

Your physics analysis of wing or tail assemblies bouncing off of the structure might be valid for parking lot speeds or even autobahn speeds. What happens in a collision between objects when -- owing to velocities two to five times autobahn speeds -- the available energy exceeds the structural integrity of the materials of the objects? The answer is that the materials shatter locally and no longer act as a cohesive whole. (The extent of localized material failure is true going from parking lot collisions to autobahn collisions.) In other words, wing and tail assemblies would not necessarily bounce off the structure as cohesive wholes, but rather would more likely shatter into smaller fragments that would and did bounce off of the structure. Camera distance from the impact and resolution doesn't make this shattering clear, but is captured on video and first responders made numerous observations about debris around the towers. (Actual large aircraft parts are discussed later.)

Your physics analysis mischaracterizes the damage to the buildings as a "cartoon outlines" as well as the structure of the building. Specifically, the wall assemblies were covered with aluminum cladding. Wingtip-to-wingtip, the aluminum cladding was damaged and got the cartoon outline of the plane profile, as expected. When studying the damage closer, the steel wall assemblies behind the aluminum cladding did ~NOT~ have a wingtip-to-wingtip profile.

The verticle beams of the wall assemblies were not solid. The beams were box column consisting of 4 steel sheets (measurements approximate) 30 feet long, 18 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. (Thickness actually varied from base to top but were about 1 inch thick at level of impact.) Three box columns were connected together with three spandrels. The wall assemblies were connected together by bolts that were designed-in failure points.

Studying the damage closely: how many wall assemblies exhibited failures at the connecting bolts and thus were pushed out of the way of the entering mass? How many hollow box columns were bent but from a distance might appear severed? How many hollow box columns were actually severed? The energy required to sever bolts, push assemblies, and bend & sever hollow box columns is significantly less than your mischaracterization of a wingtip-to-wingtip cartoon outline cut through the structure.

Furthermore, 50% of the vertical face of the tower were windows that would not have offered measurable resistance to the impacting and shattering mass. The horizontal slabs of concrete that you mention over 8 stories (WTC-2) that the plane impacted? If we were to say that floors were (measurement approximation) 12 feet apart, how much of that were the concrete slabs? Even if I'm generous in the approximation and say 6 to 12 inches, that still leaves a good 11 feet of horizontal space that, once the wall assemblies were breeched, would not have offered significant resistance: empty air space.

Another pillar in your no plane premise has to do with videos. You say the aircraft "sliced like butter without resistance" into the towers. This cannot be determined by the frame rate & resolution of the videos in question. It was insufficient to measure deceleration. And as was mentioned, the towers were not as solid as you imply, therefore allowing the thorough penetration observed.

Putting this altogether. The velocity-squared term in the energy equation of the impacting aircrafts provided sufficient energy to sever connecting bolts, push wall assemblies, bend & sever hollow box columns, and (equal & opposite) shatter aircraft materials such that they wouldn't act as cohesive assemblies but would have shattered fragments (as observed) that in part bounce off of the structure and in part enter the structure through paths that were determined to have near zero resistance.

Two cherries can be put on top of this analysis. The first cherry are the 10 instances of landing gear pieces that were recovered from various locations and very hard to stage. The one that impressed me the most was the wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that was ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 (proving again the weakness of the connecting bolts). This would not have been easy to fake or stage. Photos of this appear before either tower was destroyed.

The second cherry is the engine found at Murray & Church. Videos show the 2nd plane impacting WTC-2 and a large, billowing-smoke fragment exiting a corner and going a significant distance. It bounced off of a building before being found (or just photographed) under a scaffolding at Murray & Church. Varous photographs of the engine with & without a trash can, shoe, and street signs suggest that some staging for photographs was undertaken. I speculate that maybe they were trying to dispose of the errant engine, but only managed to get it under the scaffolding before looky-lou's discovered it.

I did the physics calculations. An exit velocity as little as 122 mph (significantly reduced from an impact velocity of 500 mph) would have been sufficient for the engine to go the distance to where it was found: entirely plausible and video taped.

I have seen sufficient evidence to believe that real aircraft hit the towers. However, I have not seen sufficient evidence that the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft, because they purposely never matched serial numbered parts to identify the plane. This then fuels my speculation about them trying to hide the engine, because they knew it did not match the make & model of the alleged commercial aircraft.

I was an ardent no planer. What convinced me to change my mind was (1) the aforementioned aircraft debris like the wheel inbetween the beams of the wall assembly on the ground, (2) proper analysis of the high speed physics and how excessive energy acts locally to shatter, and (3) the 3D analysis of NY with overlay of many amatuer videos of the 2nd impact that showed all perspectives equating to a singular flight path that also aligned with two sets of radar data that were within tolerances of one another.

Speaking of radar data, Rich Hall purposely mischaracterizes the tolerances of these two systems -- one more accurate than the other -- and suggests that a cloaked plane was one radar set projecting a hologram that the other set of radar data was faked to depict. (Very ludicrous.)

Dr. Fetzer, I followed your supporting links on holograms and did my own further research into the same (2012). Holograms have stark limitation (like a medium on which they are projected) that would have made such a show impossible to accomplish at the scale and from so many perspectives. (If it were possible, we'd have had holoSanta and holoElvis at the mall 15 years ago.) This is in addition to believing there was a cloaked plane and that one set of radar data (the more accurate one at that) was faked.

Here is a concession I will make. From their precision, low-altitude high speed, and lack of effort to identify via serial numbered parts (and flight paths, etc.), we have reason to believe the impacting planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft. As such, some degree of imagery manipulation may have happened to doctor or obscure the imagery of the plane to depict something closer to the alleged commercial aircraft. This doctoring, in turn, may have played a minor role in what the no planers have hyped as a cartoon crash.

After the discussion on Truth & Shadows (you against hybridrogue1) from July & August of 2012 that didn't convince me of of NPT (remnants on my blog), I have had the opportunity to ride two carousels of NPT on Facebook. Those NPTers made blatant mistakes; used improper physics; did not characterize correctly the buildings, the planes, or the energies of the velocities; and were intractible in a very disinfo way not even able to admit errors in their math. Very much disinformation trolls.

One such exchange is re-purposed at this link. Salient points are summarized already in this email, but there might be elements I missed. It could be worth you scanning the article. In particular, there are discussions and images linked

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html

In conclusion, I believe real aircraft hit the towers. The aircraft may not have been the alleged commercial aircraft, but were real nonetheless. I believe the whole "NPT at the WTC" disinformation ploy was started as a distraction from the real instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville. NPT at the WTC (via video fakery and/or holograms) was designed from the onset to be discovered as bullshit so as to remove further consideration from Pentagon & Shanksville issues.

P.S. You and the general are wrong about the debris. People mostly entered the towers from the underground station and parking garage. Not as many people as you think would be milling around the streets (at 9 am on a Tuesday.) Be this as it may, I do recall a couple of people being hit by debris. At 1:19:53 you talk about no debris, implying aircraft debris. Your error is assuming in tact aircraft debris, not shattered debris of which there is copious amounts. Further, you don't show the aircraft wheels. Maybe I'll send those as attachments.

//

x112 James Fetzer : A few replies to your arguments supporting real planes having hit the towers

2016-05-19

Fascinating, Maxwell. Tell me about you. Why are you so elusive about your own identity? I can think of several possible reasons; which ones are real? I regard you as very smart but not quite as smart as you think you are. A man of mystery, to be sure, who writes more sensibly about the use of nukes. A few replies to your arguments supporting real planes having hit the towers:

(1) We have done frame-by-frame analysis of several of the South Tower videos, where the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air. But that would be possible only if a massive 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the path of an aluminum aircraft than air. Therefore, it cannot have been a real plane.

(2) Had a real plane intersected with the South Tower or a real plane hit the North, there would have been substantial debris falling to the ground--such as bodies, seats, luggage, wings and tail--where the engines could have passed into the buildings, but not most of the rest of those planes. Since there was no such debris, it follows that we are not dealing with real planes.

(3) Had a real plane hit the South Tower and one of its engines passed all the way through the building and landed at Church & Murray, there would have been extensive damage to the sidewalk and the engine would have been of a type that was currently in use. But the sidewalk was not damaged and the engine was not of a type in current use. Moreover, we have video of something heavy being unloaded from a white van by several persons who are wearing FBI vests. It is overwhelmingly probable the engine was a plant.

I have no idea why you are engaged in this pretense. No real planes hit the North or the South Towers. You could argue against (1) by denying that the videos are real, in which case the frame-by-frame analysis is unavailing. But then there is even less reason to believe that real planes hit either building.

Your argument regarding (2) would presumably be that the plane was turned into many tiny pieces of debris, which was the case for the Sandia crash with a plane made of composite material run into a concrete resistant bunker. But there is no good reason to believe that would be the case with an aluminum aircraft of the kind under consideration here. So your analogy is quite faulty.

In relation to (3), I am at a loss as to how you would propose to defeat the points I have made about it. I suppose you could claim that it was an older plane with outmoded engines, where one was found at another location and moved in a white van to Church & Murray. You might find someone to fall for such a tale, but that would not be me. Nice try, all around. I grade this at B+.

x113 Maxwell C. Bridges : Countering the NPT frame analysis rebuttal

2016-05-20

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

You wrote: "Tell me about you. Why are you so elusive about your own identity?"

I am slapping my hands to avoid typing a cutting barb about your mental facilities, because I am not and have not been elusive. You asked similar questions a few years ago when you first flattered me by inviting me onto your show (but didn't happen.) I revealed to you my identity via email as a pre-requisite for an agreement that on-air and in public you would refer to me with my pen name. I'm pretty sure you googled my Bruce Wayne and many truthful nuggets about me fell out of the shaken internet tree including my real personage as well as pedigree. Several years ago I was brutally outed by a Cass Sunstein agent on internet forums: criminal libel worthy but the legal advice boiled down to "winning a judgement doesn't mean collecting" or even having legal fees covered. I extrapolated the google-reaching personal potential negative effects of the smear of having a real-name associated with such colorful adjectives as "bat-shit crazy," "kooky", "loony," and more, on a google-style half-assed employment background check. It isn't just me whom I must think about, protect, and provide.

Debunking NPT at the WTC is not my 9/11 hobby-horse; FGNW is. I only do it as a favor to a fellow duped useful idiot who prides himself on being objective enough to let himself get duped another way with new informaion and/or properly applied science and logical analysis.

You wrote: "(1) We have done frame-by-frame analysis of several of the South Tower videos, where the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air. But that would be possible only if a massive 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the path of an aluminum aircraft than air. Therefore, it cannot have been a real plane."

You over-estimate the nature of the WTC with your phase: "if a massive 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the path of an aluminum aircraft than air."

You imply that the entire wall-to-wall interior of the towers should have been a resistive entity. It was not. Between the concrete floors, the not-so-resistive entities were cubicle walls, desks, and lots of air in the areas between the external wall assemblies and the inner-core.

I have already discussed the nature of the wall assemblies. They were not solid steel; they were three hollow box columns connected together with spandrels. The bolts connecting them were a designed-in failure point. Many of the wall assemblies exposed in the impact gash show separation at the bolts.

Once the leading mass of the aircraft had pushed, bent, or severed an entry hole through the wall assemblies, there truly wasn't much structure or content to resist or hinder the remaining fuselage mass coming behind from entering.

You wrote:

"We have done frame-by-frame analysis of several of the South Tower videos, where the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air."

Because I provide the math, assumptions that I make in my numbers can be tweaked later and will not affect the trend or salient points. I'm going to prove that sufficient tolerance or error exists within your analysis to invalidate it.

Assumption #1 is that the velocity of the aircraft was between 500-525 [miles/hr]:
[A1] 500[miles/hr]=733.3[ft/sec]
[A2] 505[miles/hr]=740.6[ft/sec]
[A3] 507[miles/hr]=743.6[ft/sec]
[B] 510[miles/hr]=748[ft/sec]
[C] 525[miles/hr]=770[ft/sec]

Assumption #2 is that video frame rate of cameras and technology likely used on 9/11/2001 was at the low end 24 [frames/sec].

Assumption #3 is that a Boeing 757 is 155 [ft] long.

An aircraft 155 [ft] long traveling perpedicular across a camera's direction of view would travel its length in this many frames:

[A1] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/733.3)[sec/ft]=5.07[frames]
[A2] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/740.6)[sec/ft]=5.02[frames]
[A3] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/743.6)[sec/ft]=5.002[frames]
[B] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/748)[sec/ft]=4.97[frames]
[C] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/770)[sec/ft]=4.83[frames]

There so such thing as a fractional frame. Therefore, velocities between at least 507 and 525 mph would require 5 frames to render the aircraft traveling its own length.

Stated another way, the impact into the towers could have slowed the tail of the fuselage by 18 mph (or more) and the video technology of the day would not have registered this deceleration.

In summary, stating that "the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air" may be true but doesn't have to accurately describe the real-world event, nor does it have to imply no resistance or no deceleration.

Further, in your frame-by-frame analysis, it was unlikely that you had an exact frame where the nose first touched the WTC wall. Remember that in the span of a single frame, the distance traveled in air for example [A] 500 mph and [C] 525 mph.

[A] 733.3[ft/sec]*(1/24)[sec/frame]=30.5[ft/frame]
[C] 770[ft/sec]*(1/24)[sec/frame]=32.08[ft/frame]

The last frame that depicts the aircraft before impact introduces an error represented by the distance between the nose and the wall. In a similar manner, you have the last frame showing a portion of the tail outside the WTC wall followed by a frame without the tail. This also introduces an error.

This introduces wiggle room to your false conclusion: "Therefore, it cannot have been a real plane."

You wrote:

(2) Had a real plane intersected with the South Tower or a real plane hit the North, there would have been substantial debris falling to the ground--such as bodies, seats, luggage, wings and tail--where the engines could have passed into the buildings, but not most of the rest of those planes. Since there was no such debris, it follows that we are not dealing with real planes.

Hold it right here, because you make some false statements and assumptions.

The false assumption starts from a misunderstanding of physics that the wings would act as cohesive whole assemblies. You neglect the lessons of high-velocity physics (from Sandia F4 & MythBuster Rocket-Wedge). The velocity-squared term in the energy equation suggests energies in a high-velocity collistion that could be sufficient to overcome the internal structural energy holding an assembly or material together. In other words the relatively light-weight material of aircraft wings could shatter first and then not even be a cohesive whole to bounce.

The Evans Fairbanks video among others shows precisely such shattering happening, and many of the fragments bouncing off of the towers and falling to the ground. Other videos show this as well, but from their distance, it is easy to dismiss the framents as "dust", but the pieces were much bigger than that.

You falsely assume that tail assembly or even just the vertical tail fin should get separated from the fuselage and bounce to the ground. It is wrong, because the fuselage (with landing gear) and wings (with engines) already plowed an entrance hole. No structure or blockage would have been at the entrance for the trailing horizontal tail wings. The verticle tail fin? Plenty of opening and momentum to get carried into the plowed path. Even if some of the fin did hit against intact hollow box columns of a wall assembly, shattering has already been explained, and aircraft fragments would AND DID fall to the ground.

Because none of the serial numbered aircraft parts (wheel assemblies, engines) to the alleged commercial aircraft and lots of other pieces of your research leaves room for planes being swapped, your assumption of (passenger) bodies, seats, luggage doesn't have to hold.

This being said, in the set of pictures that included the aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a WTC-1 wall assembly that it ripped out of the backside, were pictures that shows many fragments that couldn't necessarily be considered as "native" to the WTC-1.

And the set shows body parts (from people employed in the WTC at the impact levels? And/or passangers?)

You falsely conclude: "Since there was no such debris, it follows that we are not dealing with real planes." There was "such debris", therefore it does not have to follow that the air planes were not real.

You wrote:

"(3) Had a real plane hit the South Tower and one of its engines passed all the way through the building and landed at Church & Murray, there would have been extensive damage to the sidewalk and the engine would have been of a type that was currently in use. But the sidewalk was not damaged and the engine was not of a type in current use. Moreover, we have video of something heavy being unloaded from a white van by several persons who are wearing FBI vests. It is overwhelmingly probable the engine was a plant."

Hold it right here, because you make some more false statements and assumptions. The first false assumption is that the engine hit the sidewalk. What is known is that it hit the roof of the building at Park Place: damage that would have been hard to fake (and you haven't acknowledged or explained). Impact at Park Place would have been energy consuming impact reducing damage to street or sidewalk. After bouncing off of Park Place, the engine could have hit the street before rolling, tumbling, or even spinning like a top to some other location. We don't know, but these are within the realm of possibilities and raise doubt to your statement about "extensive damage to the sidewalk." Nobody photographed the street to see if it hit there first; maybe a sizeable divit was present.

Further, given the known staging of photographs of the engine (with and without trash can, shoe, street signs), the very crews that you assume were "planting the engine" could actually have been crews that were trying to "disappear an engine", but didn't succeed; they only managed to drag it under the scaffolding before looky-lou's happened upon them. Here's why my scenario is more probable than yours: if planting a banged up engine were part of the detailed plan, the perpetrators ought to have had the wherewithal to use an engine of the proper make & model of the alleged commercial aircraft. If it wasn't going to be the proper make & model, why even bother?

You wrote:

"I have no idea why you are engaged in this pretense. No real planes hit the North or the South Towers. "

I am engaged in "my pretense" of real aircraft, because I am a religious fanatic: I'm fanatical about truth.

You do not have an explanation for how the damage to Park Place was achieved. Your video analysis has wiggle room for error regarding entrance velocities of the tail into the tower. You continue to ignore how physics of ordinary materials changes when high-velocities are involved; fragmentation and shattering precludes assemblies from acting as cohesive whole. You are not telling the truth regarding the amount of fragmented aircraft debris (and body parts, etc.) that surrounded the towers. You do not have an explanation for the aircraft tire embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1.

Your statement about "no planes hitting the towers" is flat out wrong.

You wrote:

"You could argue against (1) by denying that the videos are real, in which case the frame-by-frame analysis is unavailing. But then there is even less reason to believe that real planes hit either building."

I did not deny that the videos were real. I said that the speed of the aircraft combined with the frame resolution of recording technology as well as proper structural characterization of the towers (once the outer wall was breached) has inherent flaws that leave wiggle room for real planes in a physics compliant impact, which, by the way, was how the towers were designed in the first place: "a pencil piercing a mosquito mesh" was how one WTC designer described how an airplane impact would be.

You wrote:

"Your argument regarding (2) would presumably be that the plane was turned into many tiny pieces of debris, which was the case for the Sandia crash with a plane made of composite material run into a concrete resistant bunker."

Correct you are. The wings are observed being turned into many tiny pieces, and then some of those pieces did indeed bounce off of the towers and fall to the ground. Of course, the window slits allowed many of the shards of the wings to enter unhindered into the towers.

You have absolutely no basis for the following false conclusion:

"But there is no good reason to believe that would be the case with an aluminum aircraft of the kind under consideration here. So your analogy is quite faulty."

Here's where your 35 years of teaching logic failed you, Dr. Fetzer. I have Evan Fairbank's video showing bouncing fragments and many pictures of debris around the towers. My analogy is right on, and your understanding of physics is quite faulty.

You tried to think for me by writing:

"In relation to (3), I am at a loss as to how you would propose to defeat the points I have made about it."

I defeated your points by pointing out your false assumptions and your negligence in looking at all of the evidence, with the damage to the roof Park Place being paramount.

You try to speculate for me by writing:

"I suppose you could claim that it was an older plane with outmoded engines, where one was found at another location and moved in a white van to Church & Murray."

No, I claim that they fucked up in their pre-event analysis. On the grand scheme of things, real aircraft (but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft) were cheap. They calculated that the plane had to go very fast to achieve penetration, which may have ruled out the alleged commercial aircraft. They hoped all of the aircraft & parts would remain within the towers, but had clean-up available to attempt to disappear errant parts that might not serial number identify properly. This backstop failed; too many large parts escaped. The second & third backstop, however, did not fail: they may not have attempted to serial number identify parts and correlate to the alleged commercial aircraft; they certainly didn't publish any results of such effort.

You conclude:

"You might find someone to fall for such a tale, but that would not be me. Nice try, all around. I grade this at B+."

Oh, Dr. Fetzer. Debunking NPT isn't even my hobby-horse, and I do it as a gentleman's favor to you so that you can correct your assumptions, correct your understanding of physics, and correct your opinions, so that ultimately you can publicly apologize for this error and stop misleading the public. Prove that you are objective: NPT at the WTC is debunked. Further promotion of this disinformation (a) discredits you and (b) distracts from the true instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville. [It is another illogical and false assumption on your part that all four events would be the same modus operandus and NPT.]

Because you did not acknowledge or respond to the images of the aircraft tire in the wall assembly on the ground, because you haven't addressed my high-velocity phyics, and because you aren't even "for the sake of discussion" trying on my analysis to see if it makes sense, my grading of your effort would not nearly be as generous as your grade to me. False assumptions and false bellicose statements? I expect much more from a professor who taught logic for 35 years.

I'm not going to tell you to try again. Debunking NPT ain't my hobby-horse. It is a distraction from my nookie-doo (FGNW) hobby-horse.

Lordy, I hope that the Real Deal #103 isn't more of the same NPT crap!

Thank you for the exchange, Dr. Fetzer. Have a good weekend.

//

x114 Maxwell C. Bridges : Real Deal Episode #103 had not major issues

2016-05-20

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

I had the opportunity to view your Real Deal Episode #103. For this choir member, very repetitive. No major issues with it. Here are some things I noted.

1:11:59 shows the explosion after impact. It shows aircraft debris (and building debris) falling. The distance between the tower and camera does not do justice to the scale of the debris.

1:14:00 regarding the engine at Church & Murray. You say it was a plant. I disagree as given in earlier emails, because if it was planted, they would have used the correct engine. Plus, a real engine from a real aircraft escaping the towers and caught on video explains the damage to the roof of Park Place.

1:16:00 you talk briefly about mini or micro nukes. This is where I say that you need to research fourth generation nuclear devices and Dr. Andre Gsponer.

I learned about the EMP affecting the helicopter electronics/camera that I didn't know before. Also learned about the explosions and water in the basement that drained the sprinkler system.

I agree with AE9/11 Truth being a limited hang-out (on NT) and Dr. Judy Wood and her groupies being a distraction. Part of this is that the former has never reviewed the latter and identified the good, bad, and ugly. Part of this is that the later boasts about ideas in Dr. Wood's work but also that she makes no claims. If no claims are made (and they aren't; she doesn't connect dots), then she can't be the end station.

+++

Here is something that you might not know regarding FGNW. Traditional conventional explosives as well as 1st through 3rd generation nuclear devices require a medium (typically air) with which the destructive shockwave is transmitted to the target. Any time you have over-pressurization of air to generate the shockwave, you've got large, deafening sound waves. This was evident on 9/11.

FGNW from the directed energy & highly energetic neutrons can ablate the surface of their target, which means instantly vaporize. This then causes a shockwave ~within~ the target's material, not in air. The result is explosions and decimation of targets but without the deafening shock/sound waves through air.

This is fitting, because when Dr. Shyan Sunder of NIST tried to explain why conventional explosives weren't used (and they weren't), he brought up valid points regarding the decibel levels resulting from the amount of explosives needed to destroy the towers. He was right, and he could prop up this point because such explosives weren't used. However, he failed to convince us that energy wasn't added and that something different (from explosives) was involved.

Another side effect is that such a FGNW would not necessarily produce large events that the Richter scale would capture.

The FGNW were aimed upwards, because this helped prevent fracticide between devices. I suspect that they were mounted on alternating sides of what became the spire to further separate devices. Emission was conical, because it missed the spire and also didn't kill other devices (that we know of) or bring them into fizzle. Although the hot-spots were another indication of the job not being perfect and some nuclear fizzle happening.

This should be a refinement to your premises.

In summary, Episode #103 was hearing you drone about things I don't have issues with.

Have a good weekend.

//

x115 Maxwell C. Bridges : Convinced yet that NPT @ WTC is bunk?

2016-06-13

x116 James Fetzer : I know you are an op.

2016-06-13

x117 Maxwell C. Bridges : if I'm the "op", lean your truth against me and see what happens

2016-06-13

from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: James Fetzer
date: Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:08 PM
subject: Re: Convinced yet that NPT @ WTC is bunk?

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

You have my real identity, and you googled me, I think. If you didn't do your legwork or have since lost my identity, that fault lies with you. It doesn't make me an op, though. I might be inclined to pass my identity along to you again (because it really isn't hidden that well to someone with even middling IT skills).

Now if you want to play such silly "op" & "agent-naming" games, I'll play along for "shits and giggles" as my cowboy uncle used to say. How about you listing everything about me that has you so suspicious of me as an op? Compare me with other known disinfo agents.

The old saying: better the devil that you know than the one you don't. This is what I told Mr. McKee regarding hybridrogue1 and why he shouldn't be banned from Truth & Shadows (at the time several years ago). "Ops" can be "leaned against" and through such "leaning" discussion, truth revealed.

So if I'm the "op", lean your truth against me and see what happens. It's what I'm doing with you.

You wrote (broken up): "the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air, ..."

What is this idiotic refusal on your part to recognize the video sampling resolution limits of your statement? Who gave you this bunk to spout, or did you come up with it on your own? While true, it is practically irrelevant and doesn't say much, and therefore dings your intelligence.

Properly applied math to your statement is what makes it so stupid, professor. I did the math for you, but maybe this time, you should do it on your own so that you can see the errors in your ways.

Assume 24 frames a second, aircraft length of 155 ft, velocity V1 of 600 mph and velocity V2 of 525 mph. (Frame rate, aircraft length, and V1 & V2 can be tweaked later after this exercise into more applicable ranges for the 9/11 aircraft.)

The simple three-part math problem for you to solve is:

(a) Calculate V1 and V2 in feet per second.
(b) Calculate how many milliseconds it would take to travel 155 ft at V1 and V2.
(c) Calculate how many frames are required to render V1 & V2 going 155 ft in #b.

There is no such thing as a partial frame, so you'll have to round up for #c. Let me give you a hint about the answer: V1 and V2 should require the exact same number of frames to travel the aircraft's length.

The significance is the difference V1-V2 could just as easily represent deceleration from V1 to V2 upon impact & penetration with the tower, yet could result in the same number of frames to pass through thin air as it takes to penetrate its length into the building.

This is a glaring weakness to your NPT rhetoric. On top of this, we have aircraft parts (such as the wheel in the wall assembly, the engine at Church & Murry, the damage to the building's roof at Park Place) that you have yet to address. We also have two sets of radar data that within tolerances are co-linear with themselves as well as many versions of the amateur video as proven by 3D analysis. (Pay attention, because Rich Hall does a good job of disinfo skewing this.)

And your alternative to real planes is what? Holograms? Full of even more holes, and that your scholarly research at your institutions of higher education never ran down to learn of their true limitations. That dog don't hunt for Occam Razor, Dr. Fetzer. You don't have to go into holograms in your response, because your NPT argument is already destroyed in the math (that you'll dutifully do and acknowledge, or risk having your scientific intelligence seriously questioned) and in the airplane parts.

You wrote: "... which would be possible only if a massive 500,000-ton steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistant to a plane's trajectory than air."

In other words, you didn't read my email, and if you did, you didn't understand it. I'll briefly summarize.

You are mischaracterizing the strength and nature of the towers, and are completely glossing over the fact that resistance to penetration of outer wall assembly (R1) by leading mass of fuselage does not remain R1 for any following mass of fuselage once an opening is created and a path plowed.

For the sake of discussion, we could say that after outer wall assembly was pushed out of the way, the fuselage experience a scalping and a neutering by the intersecting floors. But those floors had weaknesses. What energy does it take to crack concrete? To bend rebar in that concrete? To zipper rip the rebar from the wall assemblies? This is not R1, and ~NOT~ a 500,00-ton steel-and-concrete blog. Once concrete is cracked and its rebar bent, the scalping and neutering floors can be carpet-rolled out the way preventing further such scalping & neutering of fuselage and becoming a much reduced resistance from R1 to the penetrating remaining mass of the fuselage.

You always point to the towers as "a massive 500,000-ton steel-and-concrete building" as if penetrating resistance would be constant and equal for all entering aircraft mass, even after a legitimate, physics-compliant path had been snow-plowed into the towers. This is a gross mistake and not at all factual. Together with the purposefully misleading statements about "the same number of frames", it sheds a vastly different light on your NPT... and your "op."

Debunking NPT isn't my hobby-horse. Championing truth is. As such, the religious fanatic in me won't let up with you and your wrong statements. If you are as open-minded and objective as you are quick to boast, then acknowledging (after study) the validity of my math and my more accurate characterization of the physical properties of the towers won't hurt you. You'll be able to offer public apologies and move on from your NPT @ WTC disinformation. But if you are not open-minded, objective, honest, or if you are the true op, you won't, and that will be to your discredit.

Here's something for your "op" checklist about me. I ain't gonna let this NPT @ WTC misleading crap from you go. I'll be a persistent thorn in your side and reputation, even if it only ever gets published to my hardly-read blog. Why? Because your championing of such proven blatant error (disinformation) does a guilt-by-association discrediting to my true hobby-horse (FGNW); and this I cannot abide.

Alas, the lengthy history of my blog itself and how it was created -- drop-by-drop one re-purposed forum / email comment after another -- is a huge strike against me being an op. Agents don't long-term preserve their own words, because the lies and deceit become obvious when collected & amassed and the goals of publication effort falls under the weight of so much dishonesty.

Give me a few days to re-purpose the history of our discussions.

At any rate, Professor Fetzer, I give you a F on your mid-term, because you have expended little effort to validate or debunk my analysis; zero effort to even acknowledge it. You think you can weasel out of your duty to truth by calling me an "op" ala "the best defense is to be offensive." That pig don't fly.

The fair and honest debate opponent that I claim to be, I'll let you take a make-up mid-term in the hopes that your grade improves. Gee, I'm so naively fair and honest, I'll encourage you to be sincere and above-board and to take me seriously. Otherwise anything less, and you'll discredit yourself like Mr. Hybridrogue1 and Mr. Ruff before you.

Show All Parts / Hide All Parts

Show All / Hide All

11 comments:

Maxwell C. Bridges said...: Dr. James Fetzer wrote on Truth & Shadows June 3, 2017 at 7:32 pm:

What makes “no planes” theory sickening? I have proven–again and again–that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville; that no Boeig 757 hit the Pentagon; and that the 767s in New York as Flights 11 and 175 were fabricated images. If someone wants to contest that, let them produce the proof. Meanwhile, here’s my latest on 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBaDchDnOI

+++

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

You get bonus points for the fervor in which you beat your own drum, for repetition, and zeal. Alas, those bonus points not only get canceled, your score gets put into the negative because of your faulty understanding of science that leads you to peddle bullshit.

The bullshit in question in your belief that the Flights 11 and 175 were fabricated images. You challenged: "If someone wants to contest that, let them produce the proof."

Let me be clear that I leave the door for some imagery manipulation on 9/11 may have occurred. The poor Pentagon footage would be exhibit A that gives me standing for some agreement on this. An exhibit B is four versions of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC: without the plane, with an orb, with a plane, and from a different perspective. Exhibit C is that none of the found aircraft parts were identified with serial numbers to match the alleged planes.

Alas, your several decades of teaching logic has given you too much hubris in ignoring your own logical fallacies. The exhibits above are sufficient to question whether the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft, but are woefully insufficient (to the point of making you a clown) to claim that absolutely no aircraft were involved with the WTC.

Indeed, your contention suggests that no planes were involved at the WTC, and worse, that holograms were involved.

We have been through this. The evidence has been presented to you many times of the involvement of real planes. Look no further than the landing gear examples, one of which ripped a wall assembly off of the backside of WTC-1 to land in a parking lot next to the towers still embedded between the hollow box columns of the assembly, photographed from several angles before either tower came down.

Worse, your video analysis is proven to have a major math flaw; you can't defend holograms with anything real world.

Old age has made you a bit senile to be bringing up the same bullshit again and again, despite being addressed. Allow me to call your attention to Part 4 of the following (although Parts 1-4 will all be very enlightening).

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html

The ball is and has been in your court to refute major elements of your analysis that have been utterly destroyed. If you were more rational (or not an "op"), you'd be amending your views. Instead, you've doubled-down on the crazy.

Yes, Dr. Fetzer, I've uncharacteristically thrown a few instances of ad hominem at you. Reep what you sow and have on more than one occasion sowed with me rather than the salient points of my rebuttal to your bullshit.

You may reply at the blog above.

// MCB; Thursday, 08 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Dr. Fetzer replied via e-mail:

+++
This is ridiculous. Refutations of your claims can be found in the video itself.

It would have been physically impossible for any real plane to have entered either building, as I explain. Pilots tracked Flight 93 and Flight 175 after they had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and hit the South Tower, as I explain. A fake engine was planted at Church & Murray, as I explain. FAA Registration records show that the planes used for those two flights were no formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, as I explain. You are a complete fraud.

+++

Dearest Dr. Fraud, ... I mean, Dr. Fetzer,

Discussion isn't about Pentagon or Shanksville. It is about the WTC where you have a poor grasp of physics: both of the plane in motion and of the tower itself.

What was seen rocketing out of the tower after the observed plane impact? What caused the damage to the roof of Park place near where the engine landed at Church & Murray? How did they fake the partial landing gear embedded in a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 before either tower came down? After a path is created in a tower by the leading edge of an aircraft, how much resistance is there to the subsequent mass of an entering aircraft? How many frames is required for a plane to travel its entire length, assuming 155 ft length, 24 frames a second, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph? How does the energy change in a collision when velocities are great, and how does this energy compare to the structural energy of material in the vehicle?

These were all questions posed to you that -- owing to your 35 years of teaching logic and zero years learning any applicable physics -- you decided to ignore because their answers didn't fit your disinformation.

Repeating disinformation and lies in your video doesn't make it any more true or physics compliant.

Yes, that is harsh of me to say about you. But an objection, reasonable, rational person would recognize when their understanding of some subject (e.g., physics) is weak and when they must adjust their position & opinions when presented with corrections to their faulty assumptions & grasp of the subject matter. Not so with you.

Evidently your goal by holding tightly to the bat-shit crazy false is a continued attempt to malign that which is (bat-shit crazy) true.

Answer the questions, learn, evolve.

//; Thursday, 08 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Dr. Fetzer replied on 2017-06-08:
+++
"Any objective, reasonable, rational person would recognize that you are an agent of the state doing what he can to obfuscate and deny truths about 9/11! You are an expert at disinformation in its dissemination. I think you are confounding me with Judy Wood, who cannot accommodate the US Geological Survey's dust studies from 35 locations around New York that proved this was a nuclear event! You are the fraud!"
+++

{mcb: Then Dr. Fetzer provided an image from Mr. Jeff Prager subsequently review of the USGS data in Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB].}
+++

Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
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.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.

+++; Friday, 09 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Dear Dr. Fetzer,

I am so sorry to learn of the advanced state of your senility. I hope that while marbles still exist in your noggin that you are making active preparation for when they don't such as a selection of an assisted living facility with WiFi. What leads me to this?

First of all, we were discussion planes at the WTC. What do you send me aside from your normal "you are the obvious op!" ad hominem? You conflate me with a Dr. Wood groupie (that I am no longer) and send me a snippet from Jeff Prager's deeper analysis of the publish USGS dust results (that I support and use in my own published works).

FTR, I wrote about 9/11 nuclear involvement before you did. I was calling it "nuclear DEW" (that my hybridrogue detractor liked to coin as "nookie-doodoo".) Although I was on the right scent, I was still off target. After further research at my local institution of higher education into nuclear concepts as they were around the turn of the century -- which surprises me that you haven't performed --, I came across Dr. Andre Gsponer. He has never written anything about 9/11 to my knowledge. But his regular, updated, and never disputed publishing of future oriented Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices was the key. It explained the 9/11 WTC observances and evidence far better than nano-thermite, Dr. Wood, and even you with your Veterans Today co-authors. I summarized my findings at:

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html

If we ignore the hair-splitting, you and I are practically on the same nuclear page. You knew this. For you to opinion anything else with your cut-and-paste... well it just brings tears to my eyes to see how far your mind has degraded.

Returning to the subject of the discussion: planes at the WTC. Questions you need to answer:

"What was seen rocketing out of the tower after the observed plane impact? What caused the damage to the roof of Park place near where the engine landed at Church & Murray? How did they fake the partial landing gear embedded in a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 before either tower came down? After a path is created in a tower by the leading edge of an aircraft, how much resistance is there to the subsequent mass of an entering aircraft? How many frames is required for a plane to travel its entire length, assuming 155 ft length, 24 frames a second, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph? How does the energy change in a collision when velocities are great, and how does this energy compare to the structural energy of material in the vehicle?"

You need to review my discussions into the matter at: http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html

From my perspective, if you want to regain your credibility and prove that you've still got marbles in your noggin, you will have to seriously contemplate my much better explanation of the building physics, the materials physics, and the energy involved. You will have to look at all the hard-to-fake evidence of real aircraft involvement (but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft).

Upon completion, you should prove your objectivity and human-ness (as opposed to bot-ness of your reply to me) by admitting publicly errors in your NPT@WTC conclusions and by stopping henceforth peddling such utter disinformation bullshit. No harm, no foul in admitting where you were wrong and correcting the record.

All the best, Dr. Fetzer, and have a great weekend.

// MCB; Friday, 09 June, 2017
Jim Fetzer said...: Nice try! You cannot even overcome the studies from Pilots for 9/11 Truth (demonstrating that Flight 93 was over Champaign/Urbana IL AFTER it had purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania or that Flight 175 was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had allegedly hit the South Tower. Not to mention that the FAA Registration Records, which I also present during the interview, shows the planes used for those flights were not even formally de-registered (taken out of service) until 28 September 2005! So for a rational mind, your case doesn't get off the ground--and that's before considering the absurdity of the non-collisions between Flight 11 and the North Tower and Flight 175 and the South. One of us may be displaying signs of senility, but that--apparently!--would not be me.; Friday, 09 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Dear Dr. Fetzer,

Poor try! Very sad. Particularly for an alleged professor of logic for 35 years.

I can overcome the studies you mention by agreeing with them. Why? Because the MOST a reasonable and objective person with a rational mind can deduce from all of that is that the alleged commercial aircraft were NOT the aircraft that hit the WTC towers.

[I'm leaving the Pentagon plane and Shankville plane out of the discussion, because they are the valid instances of NPT. Focus here, Dr. Fetzer. The discussion is about the two aircraft that hit the WTC towers. Stop your disinformation game conflating them -- a major logic flaw in your reasoning -- as if all four instances had to have the exact same modus operandus.]

Which circles us back around to your more blatant signs of senility.

A given in our discussion about the WTC planes is that real aircraft were used. A point of agreement between us should be that the WTC planes did not have to be, and most likely were not, the alleged commercial planes. How many times over how many years does this have to be explained to you?

//; Friday, 09 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Dr. Fetzer wrote:
+++
You are a waste of time--and that seems to be your objective: to waste my time! Enough. You can do your own thing.
+++

This was followed by another email with:
+++

Morgan Reynolds and John Lear have also explained

why no real plane could have entered the Twin Towers.

Check them out. You are spamming. I will treat it as such

+++; Friday, 09 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Written like a true disinformation op!

Dr. Fetzer, you are not genuine. At least not anymore. I guess the way for you generate income in your retirement -- and to avoid nasty side-effects of government backlash -- is for you to embrace the bat-shit crazy FALSE. You aren't much of a gnat to the government's war of terror against its citizens if what you peddle can be proven wrong. You then embody all that the government deems wrong with "conspiracy theorists" while making retirement money off of your disinformation books, blogs, pod-casts, etc. [I'll keep this in mind for when I hit retirement.]

You have been compromised. If not overtly by the government, then by senility in your brain.

I've looked into Morgan Reynolds and John Lear before. Elements of truth, they have. Elements of disinformation, they also have.

What sets me apart from them and you, is that I can rescue the nuggets of truth while side-stepping and debunking that which is not. It isn't "all or nothing", the typical false paradigm imposed on us.

If you haven't been compromised, why do you find it so hard to look into my (better) explanation of the towers' physics and the aircraft physics? If I am wrong, surely your PhD ought to make you smart enough to point out the errors, and I will be overjoyed that you did, because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on some subjects. I am rational and objective, and will change my mind when proven wrong.

But you haven't done such. You haven't even stayed on the subject of the planes at the WTC. You throw nukes at me, then the Pentagon and Shanksville. You avoid the valid points of physics that I bring up. Hell, you haven't even done the very simple math regarding the number of frames required to render a fast moving aircraft traveling its length. Why is that important? Because the margin of error is sufficient for it to the mask deceleration that you claimed never happened, because you peddle the disinformation of imagery manipulation and holograms.

If you were rational, you could see where your analysis has been proven wrong and you would consequently change your tune.

You aren't. And if you are rational, it is all about selling the "conspiracy theories" -- the more crazy the better -- to pay for your retirement. Admit that at least, and I'll leave you alone.

Meanwhile, I've stated over and over that I'm a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth.

I'm not impressed with error, lies, and liars.

//; Friday, 09 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Dr. Fetzer wrote:
+++
Maxwell (which I take to be a pseudonym),

Now I see the equivocation at the core of your position and why I have regarded your arguments to this point as bullshit:

You are trading upon ambiguity between (a) no-planes theory and (b) whether real planes could have entered the towers.

PROOF:

No planes theory consists of the conjunction of the following four theses:

(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shankesville (indeed, did not crash at all);

(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (and wasn't even in the air on 9/11);

(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower (and, like 77, wasn't even in the air);

(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower (and did not crash at all on 9/11).

You deny none of these four propositions, which means that you have provided no refutation of "no planes theory", even

though you assert that you have (in our correspondence on on your web site). That is a false and utterly baseless claim.

What you contend is that OTHER PLANES WERE USED TO HIT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH TOWERS, EVEN IF

THEY WERE NOT FlGHTS 11 AND 175, which is another matter entirely. I believe you are wrong about that as well, but

the key point is that you are BLOWING SMOKE because you have done nothing to disprove "no planes theory". And if you

are an honest man, then you should admit as much and modify your position accordingly. YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED NPT.

If you agree to what I have proven here, we can proceed to debate whether any real planes could have entered either tower.

This is therefore a test of your integrity. I am willing to discuss your position, but only provided you acknowledge these points.

Jim
+++

Dr. Fetzer then wrote:
+++
One of the simplest proofs that we are not watching a real plane hit the South Tower:

http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

More related articles from Morgan's web site:

https://nomoregames.net/2010/09/01/plane-deceit-at-the-world-trade-center/

https://nomoregames.net/2006/08/01/a-no-planer-resigns-from-s-p-i-n-e/

https://nomoregames.net/2008/03/08/press-release-03082008/
+++; Monday, 12 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Dear Dr. Fetzer,

You are not an honest seeker of truth. Evidence of such is that you can't properly describe your own theory. The "no planes theory" (NPT) that you promote isn't limited to proving that the alleged commercial aircraft didn't crash or didn't even fly.

You wrote:

"What you contend is that OTHER PLANES WERE USED TO HIT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH TOWERS, EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT FlGHTS 11 AND 175, which is another matter entirely."

Yes, that is my contention, but no, it is not another matter entirely.

You wrote:

"I believe you are wrong about that as well, ..."

Exactly, because you ignore the physical evidence of aircraft, you misstate the physics of both the buildings and the aircraft, and you promote imagery manipulation and holograms.

You wrote:

"...but the key point is that you are BLOWING SMOKE because you have done nothing to disprove 'no planes theory'."

Wrong. Your sophomoric disinformation debate tactic of pawning your weaknesses onto me doesn't work.

The key point is ~NOT~ whether or not I've done anything to disprove your narrow items 1 through 4. [I don't have to, because I agree with them.]

No, the key points are:

(a) The most that can be logically deduced from them is a "No Commercial Planes Theory" (NCPT).

(b) You have failed to answer or even acknowledge several questions initially presented to you a year ago and repeated several times since then.

So, Bravo, Dr. Fetzer! Who's really the one BLOWING SMOKE? Not I.

Here is a repeat of the questions for the fifth or sixth time:

What was seen rocketing out of the tower after the observed plane impact? What caused the damage to the roof of Park place near where the engine landed at Church & Murray? How did they fake the partial landing gear embedded in a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 before either tower came down? After a path is created in a tower by the leading edge of an aircraft, how much resistance is there to the subsequent mass of an entering aircraft? How many frames is required for a plane to travel its entire length, assuming 155 ft length, 24 frames a second, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph? How does the energy change in a collision when velocities are great, and how does this energy compare to the structural energy of material in the vehicle?

Stay on the subject, Dr. Fetzer. Answer the above. They are simple questions. And because they have been presented to you at least half a dozen times, surely you have had ample time to contemplate their significance particularly to the bullshit you peddle as your NPT extension of holograms.

No more weaseling, Dr. Fetzer, professor of logic. No more distractions.

If you are not a disinformation operative, Dr. Fetzer, faithfully and honestly answering the above questions should result in an "ah-ha" moment. Your eyes will be open and you would begin to waffle on your extreme NPT theories that throw out imagery manipulation and holograms to explain things.

As an aside, I do not rule out imagery manipulation. In fact, I can point to two known instances of such: the four different versions of the helicopter shot, and the Pentagon parking camera frames. Given that the aircraft weren't the alleged commercial aircraft, it might have been necessary to tweak some footage that might have revealed the ruse.

The difference is that I'm not saying no aircraft were involved, nor am I spreading disinformation with cartoon physics that is based on fundamental & purposeful misunderstanting of the actual building damage, the building physics, the material physics of the aircraft, and the error inherent in video frame rates when used to capture high velocity events.

// MCB; Monday, 12 June, 2017
M. C. Bruecke said...: Here's something posted to two of the links provided by Dr. Fetzer.

2017-06-12
2017-06-12

+++

Video frame rate versus speed of object are important, because it introduces sufficient error to mask deceleration. For example, assuming a frame rate of 24 frames per second, an aircraft length of 155 ft, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph, both velocities (and those in between) would have the aircraft travel its length in the same number of fames.

The physics of the building should also be properly described. The tower walls were not solid steel. The wall assemblies had window gaps with little resistance. The wall assembly was composed of three hollow box columns connected together with spandrels, and with the built-in failure points of the bolts that connected the assemblies together. The wall assemblies were covered with aluminum cladding.

When studying the actual damage of the building, the aluminum cladding demonstrates wingtip-to-wingtip damage. Behind that, you'll observe areas where entire wall assemblies were pushed out of the way (owing to the bolt failure points), where box columns were bent, and in some cases severed. The floors were (approximately) 13 feet apart.

The points are that wall assemblies did not offer 100% resistance, and that once the walls were breeched by the leading mass of the aircraft, the resistance to subsequent mass of the aircraft would have been reduced significantly.

Another point of physics that the NPTers like to malframe. They harp that the wings and tail should have bounced off of the structure. To a certain degree, they did but not as cohesive wholes. They tend to purposely misunderstand the physics involved by applying observations of relatively low velocity collisions (e.g., parking lot speeds, autobahn speeds) with what would be observed (in the MythBusters Rocket-slide videos and the Sandia F4 crash) at really high velocities. The energy available at very large velocities (velocity squared term) is sufficient to overcome internal structural energy of the material of the vehicle and therefore get shattered first before any bouncing may or may not occur. Close observation of the video and recognizing that from the distance to the camera, what appeared to be tiny pieces were actually much larger and were shattered wings and such.

Included in the evidence of real aircraft are 10 different instances of fragments of aircraft wheel assemblies found in various locations. My favorite is an aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped out of the back-side of WTC-1 (remember the bolt failure points), was lying in the parking lot below, and was photographed from several angles before either tower was destroyed.

My second favorite is the engine that rocketed out of the corner of WTC-2, hit a roof of a Park Place building, and then landed near Church & Murray.

Let's be clear that not of the larger parts were ever serial numbered identified to match the alleged aircraft. For many other reasons including curious flight paths, incomplete take-off records, turned off transponders, speed & precision of flights, etc., some reasonable doubt exists whether or not the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft. But the evidence is there of physical aircraft being involved.

// MCB; Monday, 12 June, 2017

Maxwell C. Bridges

2016-06-09

Debunking NPT@WTC

Part 2: FB Rosalee Grable's NPT

Part 3: FB Shiela Casey's NPT

Part 4: Dr. James Fetzer's NPT

11 comments:

Search This Blog

Special Projects

Blog Archive

Contact Me