Emails from T&S exile

Truth & Shadows run by Mr. Craig McKee has had me in exile. Several postings or comments over the year rose to the level where I thought I should respond, generally via email but sometimes by comments that have not been published. There is no small amount of irony between Mr. McKee's experiences in various Facebook discussion groups (e.g., trolled, banished) and my T&S tenure. Mr. McKee articulates his position on 9/11 nuclear devices (and by extension "me").

These discussions sadly add more data points to a particular trend line in the 9/11 realm that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into nuclear methods must be suppressed.

Hide All / Expand All

---

x8 Maxwell C. Bridges : a disinformation campaign in progress for a dozen years or more

2017-05-02

Dear Mr. McKee,

I was "down" with the truths of your article, even with the extra "downs" that you might want to fix: "...believes the official narrative down right down the line..."

You wrote:

"I’ll admit that my thoughts on the issue are colored by my exposure to many brainless discussions about 9/11 within the intellectual wasteland that is Facebook. If I were to come across someone willing to take the plunge into examining the evidence, the last thing I would do would be to urge them to explore 9/11 groups on this social medium. I don’t mean to say all are bad; in fact I know there are some administered by good people who do their very best to ensure a fair discussion. But others are dominated by trolls and likely agents who will mock and ridicule any newcomer who dares to even ask a question about a supposedly taboo topic."

With 20/20 hindsight, we know that a government operation has control of the message and public perceptions as military tactical goals. So it shouldn't surprise us that Facebook doesn't just have infiltration by government trolls, particularly in FB groups formed to discuss 9/11.

You wrote:

"... I believe there has been a disinformation campaign in progress for a dozen years or more that seeks to use the Pentagon event to divide the movement and to disqualify the powerful Pentagon evidence. I don’t say that all who push the large plane impact are knowingly part of this campaign, but some clearly are."

This would be one prong in a many-prong disinformation campaign. September Clues, no planes (@ the WTC), beams from space, deep underground nukes, etc. were also introduced.

You wrote:

"I do realize that there are those who would claim that in my frequent voicing of the importance of the Pentagon event to the overall 9/11 story—and my strong opposition to the impact position—I am guilty of the very thing I criticize: focusing on what they would call a pet theory and battling it out with any Truther who doesn’t fall into line. But I think there is a big difference.

"My focus on the Pentagon is entirely consistent with my approach to 9/11 as a whole. It’s also consistent with what I think the movement as a whole should be doing—showing the official story to be false."

Indeed. Important is "showing the official story to be false."

You later continue:

"Applying my approach to the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers is considerably less contentious but it still has areas of fierce debate. I think it makes no sense whatsoever for some to attack a group like AE911Truth for its contention that thermite played a part in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, instead arguing that mini nukes or directed energy weapons were responsible. We all agree that some form of explosive destruction took place and that the buildings did not come down as a result of plane impacts. Why would we want to split over the type of material used? Why re-fight a battle that AE and the movement have effectively won?"

I am the first to point out how most of the mini-nuke and directed energy weapon promoters have been disingenous and even in part disinformation, and I write this as one who has championed separately both mini-nukes and DEW. The manner in which these were and are promoted in a mutually exclusive fashion and unable to marry them together flags the efforts as Exhibit A of government control of the message and steering of the truth movement. Rational people and non-trolls in both camps ought to find the kernels of truth in each and evolve their thought to FGNW (fourth generation nuclear weapons), the appropriate marriage of mini-nukes and DEW.

Why do I persist? In an earlier passage, you wrote regarding the Pentagon:

"... no other entity than the U.S. government itself that could have staged this deception. Simply proving the official account of a crash to be false proves an inside job took place."

By similar logic, when the evidence doesn't stack in favor of conventional chemical explosives but leans heavily towards FGNW involvement, it not only proves an inside job took place, no other entity than the U.S. government itself that could have staged FGNW as well as the deception to point the public AND THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT away.

The following is a great paragraph that needs to be read with FGNW in mind.

"And AE does not claim that thermite did the whole job. In fact, Niels Harrit, one of the authors of the research paper, “Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” told me in an interview that while nanothermite was used, it was not the primary cause of the destruction of the buildings. In other words, something blew them up, and we don’t know what it was. But the controlled demolition position is a solid one, backed by overwhelming evidence, and it is essential to our efforts to educate others."

Parking the discussion -- as A&E9/11 does -- at thermite when they admit that thermite did not do the whole job, is disingenuous. Whatever happened to "follow the truth where ever it may lead"?

The reason is that the public whiff of anything nuclear would have had an uncontrollable reaction. Instead of looting Afghanistan for natural gas and opium and Iraq for oil, the hot-headed would have been advocating nuking in response... and there goes the spoils of war? And this assumes suspicion onto our own government (or Israel) can be thrown off. The figurative nuclear fall-out to institutions and alphabet-soup agencies could have been "tremendously yuge."

Returning to an earlier statement of yours:

I think it makes no sense whatsoever for some to attack a group like AE911Truth for its contention that thermite played a part in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers...

Here's where it make sense to attack a group like AE911Truth for its contention that thermite played a part of the destruction of the WTC: thermite is a limited hang-out, doesn't go the entire distance to truth -- and they know it and now so do you --, and shows how even their group was infiltrated and controlled.

I love the work of David Chandler on the physics of the WTC. You legitimately call him and others on their unsatisfactory Pentagon positions. Hello, Mr. McKee?! Their unwillingness to faithfully and rigorously explore mini-nukes, DEW, and the offspring of their marriage -- FGNW -- fits into the trend line of how the infiltration and steering of the 9/11 Truth Movement happened.

You want a rallying cry for the public to march behind so that truthful 9/11 lessons can be learned and not repeated? Look no further than the U.S. government used weapons from its nuclear arsenal on itself.

//

x9 Maxwell C. Bridges : "had to have been created by the use of thermite or nano-thermite"?

2017-05-11

Remember sitting in a circle as a child and whispering a message to your neighbor, and then hearing how the message had changed by the time it made it around the circle? The following passage from your article is no different.

"For example, says Weisbuch, the iron microspheres that have been identified by a team of scientists in the Ground Zero dust had to have been created by the use of thermite or nano-thermite in the controlled demolition of the towers — and possibly led to the symptoms found in many victims of 9/11-related illnesses."

Yes, iron microspheres were found in the dust.

But what is this crazy notion that the iron microspheres "had to have been created by the use of thermite or nano-thermite"?!! Talk about bullshit and non-sequitors, Mr. McKee! Thermite does not any exclusivity on the creation of iron spheres.

And given that the same team of scientists has also equivocated and back-peddled over the years: "NT was mixed with something else like RDX." "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." "NT may have been responsible for several spikes in the release of certain gases."

Please take this swearing the way it was intended, Mr. McKee. GOD DAMN IT, would you please grow a pair of science balls and do some fact-based research?!!

NT does not explain all of the observable evidence (e.g., duration of under-rubble hot-spots, molten steel, steel sags, steel doobies, etc.), while other nuclear options (FGNW) do. You already know this, Mr. McKee, because it has brought to your attention many times and should have inspired you to do some gumshoe study and research of your own.

"But in September 2016 [Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman] apologized for the first time to those who have become ill, admitting that the information she had been given was incorrect."

It says a lot about the powers at play that the EPA could be fed incorrect information which they they propagated to the nation and world. Ground Zero wasn't that healthy, no doubt. But we've seen the same manipulation of scientific findings in the NIST reports.

The world at large has experience with fires and destruction that laid waste to structures built with (by today's standards) hazardous materials. Sometimes ill-health rained down on the first-responders. But not to the degree of 9/11. The onset and proportional numbers of such indicate other mechanisms at play.

I call your attention to sections 19 "Dr. Thomas Cahill and the Continually Regenerated Fine Particles" and 20 "Decontamination and First Responder Ailments".

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#19

//

x10 Maxwell C. Bridges : Facebook experience

2017-09-22

Dear Mr. McKee,

Your Facebook experience brings back memories of my own 9/11 exchanges, seven to ten years ago. Same topics, same sources, same spiel. Glad to see that maybe you learned something from me in how you skillfully re-purpose conversations from other venues. You wield the high road like a Master Jedi Force-User; quite effectively.

The shallowness of their arguments and trying to best you with rhetoric rather than facts from actual details, together with the repetition and re-tread arguments, pegs them as agents if not potential bots. With borrowed names and reputations, your Facebook nemisis might not be who you think.

When you discuss the evidence of molten metal and hot fires the buildings requiring three months to extinguish, you should be careful. This is precisely where NT and Dr. Jones' theories go off of the rails of truth and where fourth generation nuclear devices better explains what was observed.

//

x11 Maxwell C. Bridges : the "best-of Facebook" on T&S

2017-09-28

Dear Mr. McKee,

Bless you for your truth efforts on Facebook, and for re-purposing the "best-of" on T&S.

Would you care to enlighten me as to if and when I might participate on T&S again?

Mr. David Hazan seems like an intelligent fellow. Would you please relay to him my desire for conversation by passing along my email address: maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us ? Thank you.

Meanwhile, I'm curious as to why you let Dr. James Fetzer have such breadth in his peddling. He plays his role very well. He proves that if you purposely scoop up disinformation and spread it in your truth message, you protect yourself from (deathly) retribution by those powers who might feel uncomfortable by truths. A limitation to the persona is not being able to admit to the errors, correct the message, and cut out the exposed disinformation, in part because that is the insurance. And he isn't the only one to seemingly be forced into a limiting persona with buried elements of blatant disinformation (Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Steven Jones).

If you were curious, case in point of disinformation with Dr. Fetzer: NPT at the WTC. Dr. Wood: beams from space and sophomoric nuclear research. Dr. Jones: sophomoric nuclear research based on shoddy reports that he accepted as valid without question.

I have Dr. Fetzer's book on nuclear 9/11, but it is a tough read. Partly because it re-purposes Fetzer passages I may have already read, don't want to read again, but am forced to in the hopes of improvements from the original that rarely come. I don't think he gets nuclear 9/11 completely right, but his aspirations are on that path of uncomfortable truth, so must be tempered with lots of boasting into the other conspiracies that he mastered.

Meanwhile, please remember to reach out to David Hazan on my behalf regarding conversing with me? Thank you.

All the best
// mcb

x12 Craig McKee : this discussion has become counter-productive

2017-09-29

Max,

The main reason I have not reinstated you is that I don't want to encourage more discussion on my blog about nukes, mini-nukes, fourth-generation nukes, or directed energy weapons. Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing "disinformation."

And further, I have gone on record as saying that I think this discussion has become counter-productive. We know the towers were blown up/destroyed, and we know this was not the result of plane impacts and fires. This is what is important to me. I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates. If others wish to focus on these things, then I can't tell them not to.

If I thought you would comment on the topics being posted without looking for excuses to slip in your favorite subject, then I might feel differently. But you haven't shown much of a willingness to do this in the past. In fact, as I recall, you admitted that you were trying to see what you could get away with.

I told Fetzer and others to drop the nuke topic on the latest thread and when they posted things on this later I deleted them. A whole bunch of comments were removed. Sometimes I don't see things as they're posted, so that can lead to a whole discussion taking place before I've caught up.

Mostly, I get tired of being told by others who I should and should not give the boot to.

So, that's where I stand.

Craig

x13 Maxwell C. Bridges : parallelism in large disinformation efforts

2017-10-06

Dear Mr. McKee,

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. Testament that I am a reasoned, measured thinker who takes the time to compose well thought-out commentary, this is the third completely revamped version on my response. It should be noted that this contemplative habit has always been evident in my participation and makes me a valued contributor. I don't shoot from the hip or toss out invectives in the heat of the moment that cause discussions to spiral down.

Allow me to present an analogy related to the nuclear topic. When you are elsewhere on the internet discussing the deceit in more current events, you may purposely let slip at the right moment various factoids of 9/11 and relate them to more recent affairs. Why? Because truth is truth, and 9/11 truth is your earnest belief! To your God, no apologies need be made even if leaking such truthful 9/11 statements costs you in the esteem of others.

The parallelism is that my extensive 9/11 research leads me to the conclusion that FGNW were involved at the WTC. You of all people should know that I sincerely sought out from many sources/participants rational discussion to dissuade me from this nuclear theory; I desire truth more so than any theory-du-jour I might champion. I admit to being naive and to being open to considering seriously even the craziest of theories, because I am religiously fanatical about truth; if it has even tiny nuggets of truth, they have my attention. When further research and reason uncover (un)truth, I re-evaluate my opinions and change conclusions accordingly.

Here is a second related and parallel analogy. Your (and my) earnest belief is that a plane neither impacted the Pentagon nor crashed in Shanksville for many reasons you already know, have already written about extensively, and don't need me to bore you with. In the case of the WTC with significantly more irrefutable evidence of aircraft involvement (from eye witnesses, to videos, to radar data, to wheel assemblies & engines), ask yourself: WHY the clever and elaborate "NPT" disinformation campaign was spun up for the WTC?

As with all disinformation vehicles, NPT@WTC (via September Clues, holograms, cloaked planes) was designed to eventually be discredited. The true purpose of the NPT@WTC disinformation -- in a guilt by association ploy -- was to discredit and distract from the true NPT instances at the Pentagon and Shanksville (and also to remove from consideration truths, such as valid instances of media manipulation.)

The parallelism is that large disinformation efforts were actively deployed to the explanation of destruction of the WTC buildings. I don't need to bore you with details about the styming of investigations, shoddy sampling, stilted reports, etc. on the official side. But on the 9/11 Truth side in a manner similar to NPT@WTC, many instances of disinformation were purposely seeded: beams from space, deep underground nukes, and [as can be proven] nano-thermite (NT). The age old Stalinism: "the best way to control the opposition is to lead it."

Ask yourself: "~WHY~ does the introduction of 9/11 nuclear or exotic weapons destroy discussions and lead to fights?" You know from experience (e.g., on FB) that when a (truthful) premise can't be defeated with facts & reason, then the disinformation playbook recommends negative behavior. Taking a discussion into the weeds avoids having to vet or debunk the actual premise! Thomas Pynchon: "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."

Not for my isolated & infrequent comments was I banned from T&S, but FOR YOUR FEAR OF THE OVERBLOWN REACTION OF MY DETRACTORS (since clearly proven cheats, liars, and blowhards.)

x14 Maxwell C. Bridges : disappointment in non-journalism

2017-10-06

As a journalist, supposedly you should be striving to uncover truth and following truth where ever it leads you. You haven't been. And I'm calling you on that SHIT.

Let's set aside for a moment your moderating and censuring activities on T&S. I approached you many times off-list to get feedback on what became my FGNW premise: one author to another, one 9/11 truth seeker to another, one valued T&S contributor to another. You said you didn't have the scientific background; many in the truth movement lack this, but it isn't as if it can't be explained or that you are incapable of learning what you needed to know. Learned about gravitational acceleration? You can learn about nuclear weapons. I provided my raw nuclear research that supported my FGNW opus, would have been readily available for detailed email correspondence, and even offered to converse by telephone. Like with many people before you -- David Chandler, Jon Cole, LeftRight (9/11 blogger), Simon Shack, Willy Whitten, Adam Ruff, etc. -- I earnestly sought a reasoned discussion: "Convince me (it's wrong), or let me convince you (it's right)". Legitimately take out (or vet) a premise; no problem.

To the extent you are sincere, this shouldn't have been an issue.

To the extent that Mr. Whitten and Mr. Ruff were (over time proven) totally insincere, it became huge issues for them and their reputations, and this is before, or even instead of, engaging in specifics that could destroy my "substantiating" material and analysis that consequently would have me alter my conclusions. (I had been fiercely duped by September Clues and NPT@WTC, but came around & jettisoned such belief upon deeper researched and analysis that found the flaws in the "substantiating" material.)

Truth is truth. Which is why, even when I haven't been participating on T&S for two years now, many other participants have over time brought up 9/11 nuclear involvement. (Albeit some aren't quite correct in the framing of the nuclear devices, and some -- like obtuse Dr. Wood supporters -- are outright wrong. No way they can be right if their source explicitly states that her efforts aren't the end station, and they aren't willing to consider the premises that build on Dr. Wood's work.)

When the T&S discussion is about topic A, I don't fault you for moderating and censuring nuclear detours (and the associated dirty tricks of disinformation agents.)

What I do fault you for is: NOT HAVING A PLACE WHERE SUCH DISCUSSIONS CAN TRANSPIRE. Maybe your golden A&E9/11 handcuffs prevent you from writing your own article. But you couldn't even see fit to link readers to my blog, and thereby spare T&S all manner of detours and bad behavior.

What you have been doing is parking understanding at a lesser truth (controlled demolition) while giving lip service to desiring something that might provide greater public awareness. As if the headline "USA nuked itself on 9/11" wouldn't be the desired bombshell truth revelation to inspire that greater public awareness!!!

So, yes, Mr. McKee, I am very much disappointed in you (in this area).

On the 9/11 nuclear front, you've been a weasel. "I don't think it is important." You can't even proved you've researched it sufficiently to make the determination of its importance. You've had no discussions with me into details, and never acknowledged evidence for FGNW and against NT.

Regardless of whether or not you think it is important, I and many others think it is important; and it keeps slipping into your blog. You've had plenty of guest authors. The one piece from me that you published isn't my view completely anymore (because I was being duped.)

You've been a weasel in not letting me author a piece, co-authoring a piece with me, or writing your own. You underestimate the benefit to the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world to have this theme confronted & discussed legimately (vetted or debunked), let alone the benefit to you to be able to keep the discussion under other postings on their topics.

Sure as shit draws flies, such a nuclear 9/11 work will draw disinformation agents & their playbook of nasty tactics that necessitate you being more active in moderating the comments to keep discussion on task and out of the weeds. But it is your blog. Truthfully, your limited time & efforts are better spent on this, than in unproductive Facebook exchanges. Facebook is transient; your blog is not. It is your legacy, and this theme is a glaring omission.

You need to be a lion, not a weasel. Muster the courage to confront & discuss 9/11 nuclear means legitimately. And let me back into the discussion.

If you were sincere about spreading truth to the larger public, nuclear 9/11 is the ice-damn that holds back the flood of the desired greater public awareness.

// mcb

x15 Maxwell C. Bridges : ... except fourth generation nuclear devices

2017-10-06

{mcb: email to Dr. Fetzer and Mr. Fox.}

Dear Dr. James Fetzer and Mr. Donald Fox,

Just got done watching your interview with Don Fox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfJ7IcPoImU). Pretty dry, and reading the text displayed on the screen makes it dull.

However, kudos.

In its short span, it covers most of the relevant information about nuclear devices (as far as I know from my research) except fourth generation nuclear devices. It relies on sources that I used, namely Jeff Prager's work and Dr. Ed Ward.

I also have a copy of your book, Dr. Fetzer. Haven't finished it, though. A little repetitive based on my familiarity with things you published in various places.

My nuclear 9/11 efforts, particularly in its earlier forms, pre-dates yours. Don't worry; not like I'm promoting myself or that the bragging rights will net me any income. It just warms my heart to see our two independent efforts were very much parallel.

Both of you have gaps in your nuclear research. Google "Dr. Andre Gsponer". He never wrote anything about 9/11, but he did write about Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons. You can learn what you need to know in my work, linked below.

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

Aside from pulling in information learned from Dr. Gsponer as to what the observed effects of FGNW would be, it also brings in many other pieces of evidence, such as air samples and rescued truths from Dr. Wood. Just as importantly, if identifies the flaws in Dr. Jones' "no nukes" premise.

I've pointed Dr. Fetzer to it before. It inspired him to send me links to various real deal vidoes that I then offered critique on. Because Dr. Fetzer didn't respond to the substance and differentiation of my work, it indicates to me he still hasn't read it. But given the promotion of the interview with Don Fox, maybe he should try.

BTW, Dr. Fetzer, the ball is still in your court in our NPT discussion.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html

My recommendation is that you earnestly look at the many ways your NPT position has been defeated, acknowledge defeat in this matter, and start making your apologies to the world for having promoted so vigorously such misinformation. Otherwise, you just undermine other areas of your conspiracy work.

Have a great weekend,

// mcb

x16 David Chandler : a popularity contest

2017-11-30

I guess it’s a good thing I’m not into this as a popularity contest. All of you who declare there is “not a shred of evidence” for large plane impact have not looked at the mountain of evidence that’s out there. See it here: http://911speakout.org/the-pentagon/ for starters (and follow the links and read the articles), and see the plane that did it here: http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html

I recognize that those of you who insist on agreement with your conclusions (to avoid being labelled as a debunker) will sweep aside any evidence I put forward to the contrary. Be careful what you sweep aside. The search for truth is all about following the evidence, not adherence to approved beliefs.

x17 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Judy Wood never claimed to be the end-station

2017-12-01

Dear Mr. Galen M.,

You recently posted on T&S in response to David Chandler, and sort of mention in passing Dr. Wood.

It is part of the life-cycle of all disinformation to eventually be discovered, debunked, and discredited with the secondary disinfo purpose of having foundational & still valid truths in the faulty premise swept away together with the disinfo. In fairness to the peddlers of such, maybe the disinfo elements or bat-shit crazy were foisted upon them and serve as "get-out-of-assassination" free cards.

In the specifics of Dr. Judy Wood, she never claimed to be the end-station. Her book does not connect the dots of many concepts that she presents. She doesn't draw any conclusions purposely, which itself should be a moderating & braking factor in the zeal of her rabid supporters. Only with extracurricular study does one find the blatant gaps and omissions in her work. A complaint from the Anonymous Physisist paraphrased was that Dr. Wood collected all of the evidence that 9/11 was a nuclear event(s) and parked it under kooky umbrellas (e.g., beams from space, energy from hurricanes, Hutchison effects).

David Chandler and other instrumental players in the 9/11 TM had the opportunity to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood. He and they didn't. Why? Because even if beams from space have issues with optics through the atmosphere, of massive energy requirements at the source, and of the observed evidence (e.g., destruction starting within) not matching the expectation from such beams (e.g., destruction starting at very top), Dr. Wood's work still contains many valid nuggets of truths that rightful need to be explained by any comprehensive theory-du-jour. A huge clue about (some) validity in Dr. Wood's work is the lack of scholarly rebuttal AND rescuing of truth nuggets.

Paraphrased from the Kevin Costner movie "Fields of Dreams": Ain't nobody gonna come if you rebuild the WTC with any lingering whiff of 9/11 being nuclear. (Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices, not "deep underground mini-nukes" ala Dimitri K.)

The extent to which all within and without the 9/11TM have gingerly danced around the nuclear evidence without stating the obvious demonstrates the control over the message.

If you're curious, I did the research that Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and Mr. Chandler (and too many minions in the 9/11 TM) were incapable of -- whether out of ignorance or threat.

Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW

// mcb

x18 Maxwell C. Bridges : gingerly danced around the nuclear evidence

2017-12-01

It is part of the life-cycle of all disinformation to eventually be discovered, debunked, and discredited with the secondary disinfo purpose of having foundational & still valid truths in the faulty premise swept away together with the disinfo. In fairness to the peddlers of such, maybe the disinfo elements or bat-shit crazy were foisted upon them and serve as "get-out-of-assassination" free cards.

Dr. Judy Wood has disinformation. She never claimed to be the end-station. Her book does not connect the dots of many concepts that she presents. She doesn't draw any conclusions purposely, which itself should be a moderating & braking factor in the zeal of her rabid supporters. Only with extracurricular study does one find the blatant gaps and omissions in her work. Beams from space have issues with optics through the atmosphere, of massive energy requirements at the source, and of the observed evidence (e.g., destruction starting within) not matching the expectation from such beams (e.g., destruction starting at very top). A complaint from the Anonymous Physisist paraphrased was that Dr. Wood collected all of the evidence that 9/11 was a nuclear event(s) and parked it under kooky umbrellas (e.g., beams from space, energy from hurricanes, Hutchison effects).

A huge clue about (some) validity in Dr. Wood's work is the lack of scholarly rebuttal AND rescuing of truth nuggets.

David Chandler and other instrumental players in the 9/11 TM had the opportunity to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood. He and they didn't. Why? Dr. Wood's work still contains many valid nuggets of truths that rightful need to be explained by any comprehensive theory-du-jour. Her works comes closer to the truth than NT, which can't explain pulverization or duration of under-rubble hot-spots, nor tritium, and much more.

Paraphrased from the Kevin Costner movie "Fields of Dreams" for Larry Silverstein: Ain't nobody gonna come if you rebuild the WTC with any lingering whiff of 9/11 being nuclear in the public's mind. (Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices, not "deep underground mini-nukes" ala Dimitri K.)

The extent to which all within and without the 9/11TM have gingerly danced around the nuclear evidence without stating the obvious demonstrates the control over the message.

If you're curious, I did the research that Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and Mr. Chandler (and too many minions in the 9/11 TM) were incapable of -- whether out of ignorance or threat.

Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW

Although it doesn't rule out that NT could have played a participatory role, it debunks from the onset why NT can't be the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. Dr. Steven Jones even said 2012 "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Sincere truth seekers have been parked into the NT limited-hang-out cul-de-sac, which dissuaded open-minded research into mechanisms of destruction that can address ~all~ of the evidence.

Time to change that. And the beauty is, the figurative nuclear fall-out to real mechanisms of destruction could still lead at this late date to much greater public awareness and cleaning house of the institutions and agencies that perpetrated this event, the cover-up, and the willful public manipulation into wars and loss of freedoms.

// mcb

x19 Maxwell C. Bridges : CHALLENGE TO A DUEL OF WORDS

2017-12-06

{mcb: email to Mr. McKee 2017-12-06}

Dear Mr. McKee,

*Taking my gloves off and using them to (figuratively) smack you across your face, first from the left and then from the right.*

I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL OF WORDS, Mr. McKee!!! Step up, and be all that you supposedly claim: 9/11 truther, journalist, truth seeker...

Take me and my hobby-horse seriously. Interview me. Discuss rationally and intelligently FGNW with me. [Co-author a FGNW article.] For Truth's sake, stop being a gate-keeper and legitimately take on FGNW, which will do for the world and the 9/11 truth movement a most excellent and glorious service whatever the outcome: validated or debunked!

While my 9/11 efforts may be circumscribed small, you would do well to remember me targeting one-by-one influential people in the 9/11 Truth Movement (or in the T&S discussions) to discuss "the forbidden topic": 9/11 nuclear involvement. Hay was made from non-responses. I reached out to David Chandler, Jon Cole, A&E 9/11 Truth, Mr. Wright (of 9/11 Blogger), Phil Jayhan (Let's Roll Forums), Simon Shack (September Clues), HybridRogue1, RuffAdam, Andrew Johnson (Dr. Wood's surrogate), more than a few Facebook 9/11 groups, and many others by extension or happenstance. 9/11 Blogger banned you, but wouldn't even let me in, because my research was heading into nuclear domains. Mike Collins couldn't argue facts and recommended my banishment from Ken Doc's FB affair in just a few days. Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff earn my thanks for strengthening the FGNW case; too bad it was at the expense of their integrity and character.

What does it say about such "leaders" when they are won't even review the material as a starting point for rational and reasoned discussion?

More importantly, what does it say about the nuclear topic -- FGNW -- when it constantly gets the "bum's rush" and isn't permitted to be discussed... except in disinformation frameworks?

Every once in awhile as exhibited above, I go back and review my old writings after they were collected and re-posted on my blog but sometimes where they were originally posted, such as on your blog. I have to say, the discussion under your piece on Dr. Judy Wood is awesome particular when the discussion is viewed with today's knowledge of the depths of Mr. Rogue's and Mr. Ruff's deceit to avoid rational discussion.

No need for us to argue our different perspectives regarding you putting me into T&S exile in February 2015.

You should review your article and subsequent discussion "To Ken Doc: You’re an anti-truther when you tell lies about truthers" (2016-01-01), eleven (11) months into my exile. Old and new trolls (to T&S) came out of the wood-work. More spectacularly and pretty ironic given the theme of the Ken Doc article, Mr. Rogue implodes.

Mr. McKee, your Pentagon activities and my FGNW have many parallels.

My, how time flies. My exile is now over two-and-a-half years old. But in June 2016 when it was shy of six months in, I emailed you:

Why don't just you and I have a Jefferson-Franklin style conversation, something that we'll both ultimately publish? You could interview me and ask all sorts of questions. [Joke] "Herr der Elf, you seem to be the sole duped-useful idiot championing nuclear weapons were used on 9/11. Why? What evidence do you have?" [/Joke] I'll respond to the questions in the batch, then you can ask another batch of question. You could debate me and point out flaws in my position, and I vice versa.

You and I would be doing a great service to the 9/11 Truth Movement and world, if we could hash this out as reasonable, rational, articulate adults without the interference of agents... at least until it gets published and you open it up for comments.

Convince me or let me convince you. I'll even share my raw research with you obtained recently from my T&S time-out about DEW in the era leading up to 9/11 to help you get a leg up in asking intelligent questions and defending your beliefs. Take down legitimately what I champion, if you can and God bless you in your efforts!!!

IT IS TIME FOR SUCH A DISCUSSION TO TRANSPIRE !

You know it, too. You've been fence sitting and avoiding it for years. An added benefit for doing this project with me is that I look at it as my last hurrah in championing the bat-shit-crazy. Neither you nor I will have to do it again. This could be the definitive word on my hobby-horse.

...

I respect you and your views, Mr. McKee. Always have. You do what I can't. Your 9/11 efforts are laudable. You and I are aligned on so many things, even most things 9/11. Nuclear DEW is the only outlier (except for sports, where I have little interest). As a writer yourself, you ought to be able to hold your own in any discussion with me. As a journalist, you ought to be able to ask appropriate questions and lead a discussion. Ultimately, you'll get to publish your edited version.

So, Mr. McKee, after your immediate commitments are met, let's you and I respectfully go toe-to-toe. Ask me questions (prefaced with your views.) Save up the exchange; publish it as a blog post at the end.

*Smacking (figuratively) your face with my gloves from the left and then from the right again.*

I do declare, Mr. McKee; make my FGNW hobby-horse a legitimate project. Don't shirk Truth's duties when called upon as ~WE~ are now. We should think positively in terms of eternal rewards for doing what is right.

P.S. Doesn't have to be a rigorous schedule; we just need to make continual progress. My previous work will be merely a reference when I author something fresh in response to your queries. Unless passages are flagged private, consider future our correspondence fair game for public consumption. I'll give you wide latitude in determining the format, length of responses to each question, and overall length for the piece. You could even play the role of "bad cop" interviewer in your questions.

// mcb

x20 ruffadam : won’t respond to valid criticisms

2017-12-08

December 8, 2017 at 4:35 am

Well I am perfectly fine stepping aside if I am the impediment to Mr. Chandler responding to the rest of you. I think his position on the pentagon is completely untenable and obviously so in a number of ways some of which I outlined above. He won’t respond to those valid criticisms yet any real truther would feel compelled to respond to serious challenges simply to prove to his or her self that he or she was in fact telling the truth and presenting the best possible evidence. A real truther would have to know if he or she was right or not and would do everything they could to find the truth even if it showed them to be wrong.

I think having his feelings hurt because I have been “mean” to him is an utterly lame excuse for refusing to address the vast gaping holes in his untenable position. This is 9/11 we are talking about here not some abstract little patty cake game, the whole world has been plunged into endless war over this and hundreds of thousands have died. Grow the hell up man and get to the damned truth about the crime even if it means admitting you are wrong (which you are). Your feelings are no excuse for delaying the progress of this monumentally important task.

I don’t care if you like me or not David you are blocking progress toward the truth of 9/11 and that is totally unacceptable especially because of hurt feelings on your part. Someone should slap you in the face to snap you out of that petty crap. You are delaying the truth from coming out and you are misleading people about the pentagon still to this day when you could have done the right thing years ago.

If you are so damned sure you are right then debate it once and for all in public on the record. Debate Craig Ranke, Be a man and get this crap over with. While you are at it get Jenkins to debate it as well so we can end his bullshit. You both should have done that long ago. With that I have no need to speak to you ever again.

x21 Maxwell C. Bridges : hypocrisy runs deep

2017-12-21

{mcb: email sent to Mr. Adam Ruff, Mr. Craig McKee, and Mr. David Chandler.}

Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,

Your hypocrisy runs deep, as shown when I change a few words in your opening paragraph to Mr. David Chandler on the Pentagon plane:

I am fine with you {Mr. Ruff} not wanting to debate me {SEO ak MCB}, in fact if I were you I would not want to debate me either. My point was that you refused to debate {FGNW} even though they carefully and thoroughly eviscerated your {unsubstantiated opinions about FGNW} which CLEARLY calls for either a response on your part or a retraction of your {unsubstantiated opinions about FGNW} along with an apology. {...}

Although quite fun, the reason I'm writing isn't to rub your nose in your hypocrisy. It is to point out the parallelisms between the Pentagon and FGNW.

Back when I was a more rabid Woodsian follower, I gifted Dr. Wood's textbook to several people including some influential in the 9/11 TM. Mr. David Chandler was one. I asked for assistance in legitimately debunking it. Mr. Chandler declined. As my beliefs circled back around to nuclear means, he still declined to participate, saying that nuclear physics was outside his area of expertise. Career wise, sure; but with respect to what he had to learn to become a high school teacher of physics, he had already been taught once and could easily brush up on what he needed to know. [At least he was forthright and not quite the lying weasel that Mr. Rogue was, claiming for years that he defaced his gift of Dr. Wood's rather than get at the good, the bad, and the ugly.]

Deja vu when you wrote:

It has nothing to do with me, you won’t debate anyone David. You will not lift a finger to resolve this issue and in my book that makes you highly suspect to say the least.

Here is a video on WTC-1 from David Chandler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s

He makes specific mention how SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY the top section had a downward acceleration that was constant at 65% gravitational acceleration. He states in another way, this meant that the entire structure suddenly lost 65% of its strength to resist the mass.

Mr. Chandler in later efforts gets on the NT bandwagon, but NT really doesn't make sense in explaining the pulverization in the videos at the earliest earliest stages of annihilation. If NT were used, why was pulverization a goal so early? How would NT have been positions to achieve the observed effects? Why was it so quiet compared to what would be expected of NT necessarily mixed with RDX or something else, according to Dr. Jones?

One of the debunking points of the OCT is that office fires don't get hot enough to weaken steel. However, those who champion NT don't explain positioning of NT that can achieve the horseshoes and arches anomalies of the large steel beams of the core. In the real world to create, the steel beam has to be heated end-to-end in a blast furnace for a non-trivial period of time. Although NT burns hot, how much would be required to achieve volume heating in an instance of time? And why would that even have been an operational goal?

My FGNW premise explains easily the observed anomalies with "ablating" and "volume heating". FGNW deposits ~HIGHLY~ energetic neutrons deeply penetrating into all of the materials. For large materials, this can result in volume heating instantly. In other words, the inner temperatures of large core steel beams can be raised to the requisite temperatures for weakening.

Why are the steel pans and supporting truss beams that held the concrete floors not present in the debris pile? (NT can't explain this.) When the materials are relatively thin (and/or close to the ignition point), FGNW ablates them. The highly energetic neutrons impacting the leading surface causes it to vaporize so quickly, a shock wave generates within the rest of the (heated) material destroying it. (Shock waves through air like from conventional chemical explosives are deafening; these shock waves were within the material and would have comparably a muted audio signature.)

The high percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust of neighboring buildings were from these floor pans. I speculate that the highly energetic neutrons penetrating the concrete would induce immediate rapid expansion from massive heating and breaking apart into fine concrete dust. (What overkill configuration of NT with RDX can achieve this? And why would it even be a design goal of the operation?)

The "dustification" of concrete at the earliest phases of annihilation are visible in Mr. Chandler's video. Mr. Chandler states at 2:30:

What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes.

I legitimately debunked Dr. Wood: she drops lots of dangling innuendo; doesn't connect her premises; doesn't power her DEW suggestions with anything real world that could meet the massive energy requirements of the observed outcomes; let her DEW premises be mal-framed as "beams from space"; gives nuclear considerations the bum's rush; blatant FGNW omissions which by description are DEW; etc.

This being said, Dr. Wood's work collects together most of the glaring evidence of FGNW being used. She is closer to the Truth than NT.

David Chandler -- your foil at the Pentagon -- knows that Woodsian DEW is closer to the truth than NT. So does Dr. Jones, who states: "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." They don't debunk Dr. Wood's work, because then they'd be forced into acknowledging nuggets of truth that NT can't explain and naturally points to FGNW.

Mr. Ruff, while you moan about the Pentagon and the 9/11 TM gatekeepers who refuse to study objectively all of the evidence and debate it rationally, coincidence that FGNW is in the same camp and worse with respect to its treatment? I'd even say that the concerted effort to stamp out 9/11 nuclear connections is greater.

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

// mcb

x22 Maxwell C. Bridges : set me straight about FGNW

2017-12-14

{mcb: Email to Dr. Andre Gsponer.}

Dear Dr. Andre Gsponer,

I am a big fan of your work, in particular "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" (2008).

Nuclear information falls into two categories: private and public. What is private is vast in comparison, and protected by national state secret laws and incarcerating-stiff non-disclosure penalties. What is made public is usually of a speculative nature and forward looking, general without specifics, neglects implementation details, and rarely touches upon the operational state of the art.

I am contacting you in the hopes that you can set me straight about FGNW and point out the errors in my speculation about FGMW involvement on 9/11. (Section 14 is based on your work.)

My humble efforts are happy to be limited to that public sphere. Many of your published works were reviewed and approved as fitting into the guidelines imposed on nuclear themes for public consumption, which is why I'm contacting you. If there are important public articles or documents about FGNW that I missed in my research, I would appreciate you mentioning them.

I'll not ask you to betray any of your oaths or non-disclosure obligations. But speaking of which and as an aside, I would be interested in seeing some non-disclosure documents for those doing nuclear research if any examples could be sent my way, in whole or parts redacted. My plan is to data-mine general information from them and use such extracts to explain why more nuclear scientists across the globe, and particularly the US, have not stepped forward on the subject of 9/11.

To my knowledge, you have never written anything about 9/11. (If you have and can share it, I would be an eager audience.) Still, my associating your FGNW work with "9/11 conspiracy theories" might make you uncomfortable, if for no other reason US Presidents have been saying "You are with us, or against us." This caused patriots across many disciplines to shut up and march with, or get rolled over.

But it also caused 7 illegal wars of aggression to secure resources at the loss of hundreds of thousands civilian lives. The lying and deceit that drummed the US into wars has in many ways been taken to a record high in the intervening years and with his highness Trump.

It would be an honor to exchange emails with you, and to have my 9/11 FGNW premise validated, corrected, or debunked. I am open-minded and objective, and consider myself "religiously fanatical about Truth." My two super powers are persistence and naivity. If the rabbit-holes on my blog don't give you clear enough picture of me, I'll share more of my details. For starters, though, you should know "Maxwell C. Bridges" is my pen-name, practically demanded by my Argentine wife many years ago if I was going to write about politics. My real name doesn't take much IT skills to discover but never fixed, because ultimately I do stand behind my words. It is one matter to know Batman's "Bruce Wayne", but quite another to disclose it publicly.

I look forward to my discussions with you in the hopes of some sanity brought to my premise of FGNW on 9/11.

With kind regards,

// mcb

x23 David Hazan (@Lilaleo) : well meaning people

2017-12-31

December 31, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Especially when it comes to exchanges about contentious subjects like politics, conspiracies or disinformation and the like, we often overlook one very simple fact; that the person we are talking about or talking to is nothing more than just that… A person…

A wo/man of flesh and blood… someone with a past, a family, a childhood… a person with feelings, virtues, vices, strengths and weaknesses… a person like me… like you… like Chandler.. like McKee…

In a world where there are well meaning people who may unknowingly spread disinformation while sinister schemers actually spread truth, I feel it is important to first and foremost understand and decipher the person in order to be able to put their words and their deeds into the correct context.

For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either come to an agreement, or ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.

Many here and elsewhere from both sides of the pentagon impact analysis have correctly diagnosed that a feud over if and what hit the pentagon is essentially serving as an extremely divisive exercise, and consequently as one of the major road blocks preventing progress in the so called “movement”.

Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.

Since the pentagon “attack” is not a singular event within the larger context of the entirety of the 9/11 false flag, I am failing to understand the significance of knowing what exactly happened there, let alone this level of polarization between those who harp on the issue to no end, spending (wasting) valuable time, brain power and energy on an issue that can be easily resolved through asking the right questions and not trying to answer them, let alone insisting that you have the right answer and the “others” don’t…

As most people here, I have my issues with Chomsky’s attitude and approach towards 9/11. But, the man has written and said some damn smart words:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky

In this context, I speak to those of you who are not conscious agents and deceivers: Snap the fuck out of it!!!!! You are all fighting and racing to get to the end of a dead end street.

x24 Maxwell C. Bridges : spreading this 9/11 truth

2018-01-01

Dear Mr. McKee,

I hope that you enjoyed your holidays and have a good start into the new year.

I was well into composing an end-of-the-year email to you when two things happened. Mr. David Hazan posted his wonderful comment. And I learned about http://www.911history.de and how close & parallel (& in some ways further along) it is to my own FGNW premises.

At any rate, Mr. Hazan wrote many fine words about the Pentagon discussions and its participants, many of which could be applied to FGNW.

For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either to come to an agreement, or to ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.

...

Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.

Yes, exactly! Apply the above to FGND!

You wrote yourself in your last correspondence (2017-09-29):

Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these [nuclear 9/11] hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing "disinformation."

This game is right out of the 25 rules of a disinformationalist. Notice how the field of battle has been shifted from the merits/demerits of the actual premise, assumes it is disinformation, and parries into accusing you of allowing disinformation. And a good portion of that criticism/pressure would come at you off-forum.

It would be one thing to then and there prove something wrong with specifics and/or substantiating links and have leeway to justify calling it "disinformation." It is quite another to have hypnotic suggestion and nothing else as to the disinfo label. [This is why "conspiracy" brand Dr. Fetzer is so important to the PTB. His "get-out-of-assassination" strategy -- similar to Alex Jones -- is to embraces as wide a spectrum of conspicy theories as possible and to have several bad disinfo premises (like NPT @ WTC, holograms) to discredit himself and by association all other conspiracy premises in his stable of hobby-horses.]

Dr. Fetzer's embracing of 9/11 having nuclear components is both good news and bad news for me. The good news is that the topic has become important enough with enough details collected by others to merit having it steered by an agent. The bad news for me is that association with Dr. Fetzer gives it a black eye.

Mr. Hazan added the following quote to his posting on your blog.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky

You were kicked out of 9/11 Blogger for the Pentagon stance; I was not even granted admission when my (unripe) nuclear suspicions were made known to the approving admin.

While it should be true that postulating the existence of FGNW, I offer the paid disinfo agents an attack point. In practice, it is not true. Nuclear 9/11 is the topic they are not allowed to talk about, period. They'll mock it, attack me, but they will never go into specifics, quote from one of my sources, and have a reasoned explanation for why it is wrong. Their attack point is limited to Dr. Gsponer only being able to write "speculative forward-looking" FGNW, not about what is current day state-of-the-art & operational.

In fact, this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly it and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.

Among the many fronts and tactics that I'm fought on, I have the NT agenda-defenders, the OCT gravity agenda-defenders, the Woodsian agenda-defenders too stilted to admit she wasn't an end-station, and the mal-framers of nuclear means (e.g., deep underground nukes). If the participants were earnest:

- There would be significantly more alliances and marriages, like Woodsian DEW with nukes (FGNW).
- There would be more rescuing and re-purposing of nuggets of truth.
- There would be more acknowledgment of weaknesses in even our own premises.
- There would be more changing of opinions based on new analysis.

Dear Mr. McKee, Two of my super-powers are (1) persistance and (2) being naive & trusting [until given reason not to be.] Obviously, my persistance super-power coupled with being an earnest seeker of Truth has brought my research to FGNW conclusions that I doggedly defend [until given reason not to.] Alas, my second super-power seems to have given you too much benefit of the doubt and misjudged you.

In your last communication with me (2017-09-29), you claimed: "I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates [e.g., on the WTC destruction.]" Exactly how do you prove this concern? Facebook battles. And an obsessive compulsive promotion of no planes at the Pentagon that out-does and overshadows my humble FGNW efforts. Who's the crazy one?

We both are, Mr. McKee. Crazy fanaticals about Truth fighting the nobel online intellectual battles to influence hearts & minds to bring positive change to the world.

[BTW: Here is a major red flag. ~THE~ David Chandler who gave us so many videos of high school physics on 9/11 proving controlled demolition. ~HE~ is the one (with a reputation) given you difficulties as he agenda-defends OCT Pentagon. Well, ~HE~ is also the one given a free-copy of Dr. Wood's textbook in hopes that he would help me debunk it -- good, bad, and ugly (before Mr. Rogue screwed the same pooch) -- and he with the qualifications refused. Why? Again, closer to the truth. He doesn't even go there and with specifics prove it wrong.]

I took a page out of your playbook and spent a couple months in various 9/11 Facebook groups (like Debunkers vs Truthers, Fair and Civil Debates, Andrew Johnson's Woodsian group). Talk about infestation with agents, bots, and multiple personas! To the degree that you received resistance and attacks in your hobby-horse Pentagon area, my FGNW hobby-horse got it worse... but weak, without specifics, nothing to make me doubt.

Is my FGNW disinformation? El-oh-eh, if Dr. Fetzer is practically in that nuclear camp, maybe it is.

Seriously, you can't answer that question, Mr. McKee, and this is the area where I've misjudged you. I thought you more of an objective journalist, an eager learner, and sincere seeker of truth as I am. I was wrong. Given our parallel political outlooks and agreement on so many things [except sports and FNGW], our love of language, and superior abilities in holding rational, reasoned, researched debates, I was hoping for a Franklin-Jefferson style intellectual exchange. You disappoint.

You wrote:

And further, I have gone on record as saying that I think this discussion has become counter-productive. We know the towers were blown up/destroyed, and we know this was not the result of plane impacts and fires. This is what is important to me. I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates. If others wish to focus on these things, then I can't tell them not to.

Your Pentagon hobby-horse is only going to go so far in "spreading this 9/11 truth". The Elephant hobby-horse in the room that would become the hot-button issue to spread the truth like a California wild-fire is (as a starting point) sincere, rational, reasoned discussion of FGNW. The US government needed a threshold of civilian casualties to nudge the American public into supporting its global agenda. Well, 9/11 nuclear anything in the public consciousness is the threshold needed to change things on a large scale.

// mcb

Hide All / Expand All