Objective & rational thinkers know that if theory X is missing pieces, then further research into X is required before it can be deemed complete. If theory Y has X's missing pieces, then maybe X & Y ought to shack up for a bit to see if they are compatible.
The following are discussions to persuade Woodsian DEW supporters that shacking up with nuclear FGNW might complete and validate their theory.
These discussions add more data points to a particular trend line in the 9/11 realm. The trend line (exhibited even on Truth & Shadows) dictates that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into nuclear methods must be shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques, up to and including banishment.
Expand All Parts / Hide All Parts
Expand All Sections / Hide All Sections
Part 3: FB, Andrew Johnson, and Woodsian Followers
Andrew Johnson is arguably the most influential champion of Dr. Wood's theories, because of his Facebook groups, websites, and means of production & distribution for various conspiracy materials. Below Mr. Johnson demonstrates rather quickly that he is unable to acknowledge the limitations of Dr. Wood's work, much less to pursue nuclear theories that could validate some of her premises.
x26 Andrew Johnson, Atahan Ganduu, Tom Farrar Talley, Julia Ratsey : what problem are you trying to solve?
2017-11-08
2017-11-08
Andrew Johnson
Group Admin
So what problem are you trying to solve? I think your statements are not really accurate. Can you give a summary of what you are talking about? Do FGND's work silently and invisibly? Or are you just pushing an bogus explanation which has already been ruled out - as long ago as 2008 when Ed Ward started to promote it?
Atahan Ganduu In another group a Tracy Blevins has a mission to replace the placeholder words with known words for known phenomenon, so this is really a fourth-generation truther, they couldn’t challenge the research in any legitimate way so it seems at this point they wish to piggyback on it and put junk around it.
Tom Farrar Talley Tracy Blevins = 100% Turbo-charged FrOOTKake.. and is a radicalized Feminazi, too.. and I wasted a lot of time with her before I realized it..
Julia Ratsey Maxwell Bridges APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA), and SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC) - both researchers into and manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons, were amongst the Defendants when Dr Judy Wood took her case to Court citing evidence for the use of a Directed Energy Weapon to commit the crime of the destruction of the Towers at the WTC .
SAIC personnel were present at Ground Zero soon after 9/11. SAIC are also Psychological Operations consultants.
What is your explanation for the involvement of SAIC, a Directed Energy Weapons manufacturer, in both the securing of the crime scene after 9/11 and the defence case against claims made in Court by Dr Wood of a DEW having been used to commit that crime?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
x27 Maxwell C. Bridges : the problem being solved is defining what is the next level
2017-11-08
Dear Mr. Andrew Johnson, any objective truther championing Dr. Wood's work should recognize that she never claimed it was the end-station on 9/11, never connected her dots, can't power her innuendo-ed devices with anything real-world, and left huge research gaps; objective and honest Woodsian truthers would see these short comings and should continue researching the viable mechanisms. Therefore, the problem being solved is defining what is the next level.
The summary is fourth generation nuclear devices. I've read Dr. Wood's work many times. Your questions lead me to believe you haven't read my work -- linked above -- even once. Puts you at a disadvantage.
To answer your questions about FGND working silently and invisibly, this is red herring, because the 9/11 WTC evidence documents the observed events as being neither silent nor invisible. And to be sure, FGND would be significantly quieter and relatively subdued in its visuals as compared to chemical-based NT (mixed with whatever). Why? RTFM above.
In a nutshell, FGND would not be relying on air & pressure changes as a medium to inflict pulverizing damage that in turn would be deafeningly loud and have many observable flashes. FGND (say, 6-12 per tower) might have an initial flash but would then deposit highly energetic neutrons deep within the building material, so high that impact surfaces would vaporize so quickly (e.g., "ablate"), it'd send a shock-wave into the rest of the material decimating it. As observed.
Further more, if you do not point out what exactly is "not really accurate" in the article (in part because you haven't read it), then you fail in providing a convincing counter argument.
Finally, Dr. Ed Ward did the math & chemistry to prove some of the various games played by "official reports" (and Dr. Steven Jones), such as re-defining background levels to match their haphazard measurements for traces nuclear.
FGND is different (but close) from my understanding of what Dr. Ward promotes today.
//
x28 Atahan Ganduu : piggyback on it and put junk around it
2017-11-08
Atahan Ganduu In another group a Tracy Blevins has a mission to replace the placeholder words with known words for known phenomenon, so this is really a fourth-generation truther, they couldn’t challenge the research in any legitimate way so it seems at this point they wish to piggyback on it and put junk around it.
x29 Maxwell C. Bridges : are you an artificial intelligence, or bot?
2017-11-08
Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu, in my previous discussions with you, I was lead to believe that you are an artificial intelligence, or bot. And your incoherent comment does nothing to dissuade me from that view.
FTR, I have and can easily challenge "the research" (e.g., Dr. Wood's work) in ~many~ legitimate ways. On my blog, and you were one of the actors who helped me hone my furtherence of "the research" beyond Woodsian cul-de-sacs.
The following link represents discussions (in part with you, Mr. Ganduu) before I took the final leap into FGND and wrote it up. At the time, though, I was hot on the trail and exposed your bottish ways. Do an "Expand All" at the link and search for your name.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
It is why I won't have much patience for you. Prove you are human, and objective, and sincere: RTFM and ask questions related to the subject of FGND. You're welcome to participate on my blog under either URL. (Comments are moderated on a very loose schedule, so don't fret if your comment doesn't appear immediately. I promise to be fair and reasonable.)
//
x30 Tom Farrar Talley : a radicalized Feminazi
2017-11-08
Tom Farrar Talley Tracy Blevins = 100% Turbo-charged FrOOTKake.. and is a radicalized Feminazi, too.. and I wasted a lot of time with her before I realized it..
x31 Maxwell C. Bridges : she sort of gave up
2017-11-08
Dear Mr. Tom Farrar Talley, you sound scared of Dr. Tracy Blevins. I do credit her with getting me to re-think some of my premises and helped get me to FGND. The only issue I had with her is that she sort of gave up. She could neither debunk specifics of my premise, nor provide an alternative, and exited the discussion well before it had any meat to the bones.
//
x32 Julia Ratsey : SAIC personnel were present at Ground Zero soon after 9/11
2017-11-08
Julia Ratsey Maxwell Bridges APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA), and SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC) - both researchers into and manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons, were amongst the Defendants when Dr Judy Wood took her case to Court citing evidence for the use of a Directed Energy Weapon to commit the crime of the destruction of the Towers at the WTC .
SAIC personnel were present at Ground Zero soon after 9/11. SAIC are also Psychological Operations consultants.
What is your explanation for the involvement of SAIC, a Directed Energy Weapons manufacturer, in both the securing of the crime scene after 9/11 and the defence case against claims made in Court by Dr Wood of a DEW having been used to commit that crime?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
x33 Maxwell C. Bridges : no surprise to see the involvement of SAIC
2017-11-08
Dear Ms. Julia Ratsey, please be careful, otherwise a learned and experience participant might get the impression that you, like Mr. Ganduu, are a bot.
I have no issues with what you wrote above, except that you also demonstrate that you didn't RTFM. How can I make this assessment?
FGND are by definition "directed energy weapons".
Therefore, it is no surprise to see the involvement of SAIC, a DEW manufacturer, at Dr. Wood's faux Qui Tam Complaint. Faux, because she had no standing to even make the claim and could have know it would be thrown out for that very reason. And double-jepordy style, her case makes it harder to bring the same to trial again (a) when the nature of the DEW weapon is better understood and (b) when someone from inside really does have standing.
Furthermore, I did the research into the turn of the century capabilities of DEW and nuclear devices. [Dr. Wood did a poor job of it.] If we limited the DEW discussion to Dr. Wood's loose descriptions, she NEVER SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED IT TO BE FRAMED BY OTHERS AS "BEAMS FROM SPACE" OR "FREE ENERGY FROM SPACE". How so?
Optics is the first crippling hurdle that Woodsian DEW can't overcome. The energy wavelengths most conducive to transmission through the atmosphere would be inadequate to the task.
Second, space-based DEW can destroy missiles, mostly because it can concentrate energy at a tight surface area and then take advantage of volitile attributes of the target, such as explosive payloads or fuel. The energy requirements to decimate a tower without such on-board explosive cheats is mind-boggling huge.
Third, the evidence (on WTC-1 and WTC-2) does not depict "tippy-top-down" destruction as would be evident from space-based DEW. Instead, destruction begins within the towers (about the height of the plane impacts). It indicates earth-bound destructive DEW, not space-based DEW.
Fourth, if earth-bound, then "free-energy from space" doesn't apply, and rational Woodsian supporters should be looking for other energy sources. And wouldn't you know it, nuclear is something that the USA has had more than half a century to tweak. Tritium and Dr. Cahill's studies should have been huge clues to go down the nuclear rabbit-holes.
http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php
x34 Andrew Johnson : not watched the 7 hours of video
2017-11-08
Andrew Johnson
Group Admin
Maxwell I see. So have you any photos of bright flashes commensurate with the level of destruction observed. As with the poster above, it appears you have not studied the "About" section of this group and watched the 7 hours of video, nor have you read my free book. What you are saying is based on speculation. Additionally, you are forgetting something "stormy" Hurricane Erin. So, as I said to the previous poster, watch the videos and come back with questions or post elsewhere. You have nothing new to offer. You have essentially acknowledged you are promoting a disproved theory. Also, I understand Ward is an MD not a materials specialist etc. Has he submitted a court case?
x35 Maxwell C. Bridges : Stop moving the goal posts
2017-11-08
Dear Mr. Johnson, Stop moving the goal posts. The true prerequisite is a thorough understanding of Dr. Wood's work; not a re-hash of the same in a 7 hour video. Unless you can tell me anything in your 7 hours of video (with preferably a time-stamp) that is new and substantial, then all you are doing is attempting to park understanding at a lesser, unripe level.
The discussion under this thread in your "Real 9/11 Truth Movement" group is FGND, not your 7 hour video. It brings new information and correlation to the table that builds on Dr. Wood's work.
I made many passes through Dr. Wood's textbook and website. You owe me the courtesy of the same with my much shorter (but still long) article.
As for your graphic image, are Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices even listed? No. In fact, she doesn't even mention neutron nuclear devices, which is the nuclear technology on which FGND are built. So your graph isn't even applicable. Just you trying to distract from the real question: are FGND the holy grail and the next level to Dr. Wood's research?
I should also point out that in making this graph and the parts of her book where it is found, Dr. Wood falls into the same trap as Dr. Jones. Namely, she accepts unquestioned "official" reports that supposedly measured certain things like tritium, reports that were very wanting in their thoroughness, systematicness, and completeness.
My article provides many tools for researching my premise, including the collapsed "table of contents" view and the "expand all" view that allows searching on terms.
Oh yeah, and now that I see in the table header "Toasted Cars at a Distance", it should be pointed out a major error in Dr. Wood's work involving police car 2345(? or whatever number it was). Armed with pictures of the toasted police car at the bridge, she claims the energy of her hand-wavey device (that may or may not have been powered from space according to her) torched the car AT THE BRIDGE. The truth is other pictures not in her book show the same police car STILL ON FIRE and NOT at the bridge, somewhere else.
What remains relevant, however, are the cars in the parking lot documented by Dr. Wood. The EMP side-effect of a FGND (and all nuclear weapons) can explain these. It is in my article that you have yet to read. Search on it. Search on Dr. Wood's name.
//
x36 Atahan Ganduu : prove I am human lol
2017-11-08
Atahan Ganduu prove I am human lol. What concern should I have if someone doesn’t believe I am human.
Atahan Ganduu I viewed your link, wow, you’ve been busy! Incredible amount of energy spent on an unknown problem. Have a great day.
x37 Maxwell C. Bridges : pre-programmed algorithms can never be expected to ever change its mind
2017-11-08
Dear Mr. Ganduu, The concern is that you aren't genuine (because you might not even be human), and therefore owing to your pre-programmed algorithms can never be expected to ever change your mind when proven wrong. As a bot, you'd just keep repeating the same text; you'd have infinitely more patience in cranking carousels and distracting the discussion.
Your two comments would have served everyone better (in a non-spamming way) if they would have been combined together. Multiple spamming comments in a row not saying anything specific about anything being discussed (refer to the URLs) does nothing to make you more genuine.
To overcome this, go to a section in my article and identify the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Given that it uses Dr. Wood's work, you'll fail if you can not identify any good.)
//
x38 Andrew Johnson : questions about Hurricane Erin
2017-11-08
Andrew Johnson
Group Admin
Oh dear. It seems we have someone who won't answer questions (about Hurricane Erin) and just wants to re-hash 9-year old stuff, while pretending it's new. We know hot nukes didn't do it. People survived in stairwell B. We know there were no bright flashes as the towers turned to dust. We know the towers weren't cut into chunks. We know field effects were involved. We know all this. Why are you here? To waste our time?
x39 Maxwell C. Bridges : Nowhere does it mention "hot nukes"
2017-11-08
Dear Mr. Johnson, your integrity is being tested and is failing. Nothing you have written proves you even looked at the article that is the foundation of this thread. Nowhere does it mention "hot nukes".
Nowhere does it re-hash 9-year old stuff. And if it did (which it doesn't) you could simply point out the specific places where it does. But because you haven't read the article, all you can do is play games.
Hurricane Erin has nothing to do with the article or FGND on 9/11, so you are being disingenuous in even bringing it up. More game playing.
Why am I here?
Any astute follower of Dr. Wood's work KNOWS that she purposely left gaps, put in red-herrings, and had other issues. To her credit, she never claims to be the end station.
Therefore, I am here to get us closer to the end-station of the 9/11 mechanisms of destruction. And if you don't want to go there and point out its errors (or acknowledge its truths), then it paints a pretty clear picture of WHAT YOU ARE DOING: wasting the time of sincere seekers of truth.
The assignment is clear. Stay on topic, please. Defeat it legimitately, or recognize its validity.
//
x40 Julia Ratsey : irrefutable evidence in WDTTG
2017-11-08
Julia Ratsey Maxwell Bridges
There is irrefutable evidence in "Where Did The Towers Go" that the destruction of the WTC buildings was a COLD nuclear event. Are you now refuting that evidence or not ?
Could the FGDN directed energy weapon, of which you speak, be de-commissioned and the nuclear reaction developed for peaceful purposes to provide free energy for the world?
From what I have read of your blog it doesn't appear to mention that possibility or indeed show any interest in the subject of free-energy ... maybe this is why you depart from the work of Dr Wood with your theory whilst damning both her and her evidence with faint praise?
Finally, why do you leave it until now to approach this group with your theory. Why now? Have you timed it to coincide with a campaign to muddle up and discredit Dr Wood and her evidence that is spreading on the internet?
x41 Maxwell C. Bridges : grossly mistaken in your alleged "irrefutable evidence"
2017-11-08
Dear Ms. Julia Ratsey, you are grossly mistaken in your alleged "irrefutable evidence in 'Where Did The Towers Go' that the destruction of the WTC buildings was a COLD nuclear event." No such evidence of a COLD nuclear event was present. It was all innuendo and hand wavey.
I, on the other hand, did research it. I even provided my raw research. Cold fusion (which I assume is your COLD nuclear event) is just barely a real thing and certainly has never been operational. Had you bothered to go to the library of your institution of higher education and done just a little bit of research into the matter, this glaring weaknesses of a COLD nuclear event" (which Dr. Wood never really claimed, another of your errors) would be self-evident in Dr. Wood's work.
FGND are a different matter.
Google Dr. Andre Gsponer. He's never written anything about 9/11. But he has written lots about FGND. His research was available to Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones. Yet neither mention it. Too close to the truth, I guess.
My blog doesn't mention "free-energy"? So what? Dr. Wood either at the time of writing or today has never proven it operational at the scale it would need to be to come close to exhibiting what she credits it for on 9/11. My research proved to me that DEW alone (as in beams from space) doesn't cut it. If you want to move the goal posts into "COLD fusion", the operational aspect of it is still lacking. I researched it; you didn't; you just accept Dr. Wood's work at face value. Shame on you, because she even tells you to look at what the evidence is telling you (not what she is telling you.) You've been duped.
"Damning both her and her evidence with faint praise?" Credit where credit is due, but not more than what is due it. You need to get your nose out of her book's crack and admit what she said: she's not an end-station. Do some research on your own and you'll see where crafty Dr. Wood was right and also where she leads astray.
The timing of my entrance? My schedule, my interest, nothing to do with anything else. I've been around awhile and been leveling the same criticism of Dr. Wood for years now. Open your eyes.
With my banishment and your groups' weak responses, you all fail except at being cowards and shills for disinformation.
If you are sincere in your search for truth, you know where my research is and how to reach me (outside of Facebook.)
//
x42 Larry Mallette : ad hominem attack with an ad non-hominem attack
2017-11-08
Larry Mallette
Ah-ha! Replace the ad hominem attack with an ad non-hominem attack! Good work!
x43 Maxwell C. Bridges : the alleged "Real 9/11 Truth Movement"
2017-11-08
Dear Mr. Mallette, you wrote under a discussion started by me: "Ah-ha! Replace the ad hominem attack with an ad non-hominem attack! Good work!"
To what are you referring? If it is me calling Mr. Ganduu "a bot", what you fail to acknowledge is that I have a long history with Mr. Ganduu (follow the link) and he has never failed to be a wishy-washy, copy-&-paster, weak, Woodsian troll. Couldn't argue specifics to defend Dr. Wood's work, except in what he copy-and-pastes and didn't understand.
True to his bot trend line, did he mention one specific thing from the article that was the foundation for the discussion? Nope. General, innocuous, and meaningless all accurately describe his engagement, as would be fitting a bot.
As for the rest of your wonderful group, the alleged "Real 9/11 Truth Movement", can't even stand up for some good old fashioned rational, reasoned, researched discussion.
I'm banned already. Consider that a huge red flag about the weakness of the Woodsian followers (in particular Mr. Andrew Johnson). Cowards.
You know where to find my work and how to contact me off-list. If I'm wrong, point out where. I hate being the sole duped useful idiot. I have a track record of admitting when I'm wrong when faced with convincing, rational counter-argument.
Have a good day.
//
Part 4: "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate"
{mcb: The following were snippets of discussion in four Facebook groups on 9/11. The main group was "Debunker vs Truther", and it had overlapping membership with "Fair and Civil Debate" and "the actual truth". The debunker participation proved (a) existence of web-bots; (b) existence of paid-to-post debunkers; (c)_ existence of a concerted online campaign to steer 9/11 messages. }
| Debunker | Truther |
|---|---|
|
|
x45 Maxwell C. Bridges : Debunking the official fabel.
Maxwell Bridges shared a link.
New Member · 1 hr
The official fabel about the World Trade Center (WTC) towers' destruction on 9/11 claims (1) that the building stories above the impact levels became massive pile drivers that acted solely under the forces of gravity to pulverize the underlying structures to the ground and (2) that no extra energy was added from unknown sources.
However, many videos of the destruction of the WTC towers expose anomalies in the form of (1) destruction at free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection that defy physics, unless energy was added from other sources.
Assuming the damage and fires from the impacting planes could have initiated the collapses of the towers (for which they were designed), the structure underneath the falling upper stories would have and should have resisted & slowed the destruction wave, if the collapse wasn't arrest completely well above ground level.
The pulverization of content and the ejection of content are energy sinks that take away from the kinetic energy of a "pile driver" and logically would have further slowed the destruction from free-fall speeds. Moreover, as observed in many videos and discussed by physics teacher David Chandler, the "pile driver" of upper stories accordianed in on themselves and weren't a cohesive mass anymore by the time the wave of destruction progressed below the levels where the airplanes impacted.
This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. In doing so, it discusses why the leading theory of Nano-Thermite proposed by many influential leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement does not go the whole distance and is therefore wrong.
Maxwell Bridges I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot championing a form of nuclear weapons being deployed on 9/11. I wish to be set straight. Alas, in my trips around the 9/11 block, rational discussion has not swayed me from these beliefs (in part because wannabe debunkers don't often exhibit rational discussion). Rational discussion is what I desire. Reasoned, researched, thoughtful.
//
x46 Adam Fitzsimmons : met with laughter, and lots of it
2017-12-08
Adam Fitzsimmons
Adam Fitzsimmons Nuclear device claims should be met with laughter, and lots of it.
x47 Maxwell C. Bridges : Devoid of anything specific
2017-12-08
Not a very good rebuttal. Devoid of anything specific. And posted with clearly not enough time to read and contemplate the source article. For shame, Mr. Adam Fitzsimmons. Let's see if you can't remove this deficiency in your future correspondence, please and thank you.
I've posted enough rabbit holes about my 9/11 efforts over the last decade or more. My game plan is exposed and laid out: write words worthy of preservation, collect, and re-publish them. Document my evolution in thought.
In short, you know who you are up against ("an industrial strength conspiracy theorist", religiously fanatical about Truth), my tactics (high-road, collecting my efforts elsewhere) and my goals (TRUTH).
Unlike you, I'm not on a tag-team; I don't have a government agenda to defend that makes it impossible to change my opinion.
Take the high road and take me seriously, and we'll have a great time learning from each other.
//
x48 Adam Fitzsimmons : wont be taking you seriously
2017-12-08
Adam Fitzsimmons
Adam Fitzsimmons I am not a debunker nor truther, and i wont be taking you seriously with your suitcase nuclear devices. And i most likely never will.
x49 Eric Conley : no CD assistance was needed
2017-12-08
Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges << if you are interested in reasoned honest and serious discussion I can explain the twin Towers collapse mechanisms and show why no CD assistance was needed.
It would be a moderately lengthy process and requiring your honest reasoned input in discussion of my explanation.
>>
x50 Maxwell C. Bridges : Go for it
2017-12-08
Go for it, Mr. Eric Conley, here or on my blog.
Fair warning, if you want to debunk controlled demolition (CD) and my belief it was FGNW, my efforts are divided into 31 sections. Set me straight section-by-section, please.
//
x51 Eric Conley : post your starting premises and an outline of your reasoning
2017-12-08
Eric Conley
Eric Conley My offer was that "I can explain the twin Towers collapse mechanisms and show why no CD assistance was needed". I don't need to debunk CD to achieve that goal - or more accurately I dont need to rebut CD or debunk a pro-cd argument.
However if you want a critique of your reasoning I'm prepared to start a process and see how far we can progress reasoned discussion.
Here - this group - in full view of the members. Why not post your starting premises and an outline of your reasoning - then we can see if there may be grounds for discussion?
x52 Maxwell C. Bridges : nice try at assigning me busy work
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Eric Conley, nice try at assigning me busy work. My premise and its outline is already published and available. It is the article that anchors this discussion. 31 sections. Go to town. Set me straight. Make me a believer in miracles. //
x53 Elizabeth Tague : snigger
2017-12-08
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague See he is ONLY looking for traffic to his blog.
Must be starved of attention.
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague *published* ... snigger !!!
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : devoid of anything that could get me to change my mind
2017-12-08
Elizabeth Tague, as with many things, you error. And without specifics, and therefore devoid of anything that could get me to change my mind from the supposed errors in my beliefs. If that is going to be your only consistency, please go elsewhere. Kindly ignore me.
Here is the title of Section 1: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices & 9/11"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
x55 Elizabeth Tague : self-absorbed attention whoring blog page
2017-12-08
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Your self-absorbed attention whoring blog page is NOT "publishing" Bridges ... you are NOT some expert or someone special ... you are JUST another dumb twoofer spewing shite and achieveing NOTHING.
x56 Maxwell C. Bridges : Beyond Misinformation
2017-12-08
That first section quotes from "BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7":
Looks like you'll have to debunk it, too.
http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/
x57 Elizabeth Tague : Meme: I SPOT AN ATTENTION WHORE
2017-12-08
Elizabeth Tague ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Image may contain: one or more people, meme and text
{mcb: Meme shows an older woman holding her glasses to her eyes with the words "I SPOT AN ATTENTION WHORE."}
x58 Maxwell C. Bridges : You do not disappoint in your ability to fail
2017-12-08
Oh, Mrs. Elizabeth Tague. You do not disappoint in your ability to fail in a rational discussion. Address specifics, or ignore me and go elsewhere.
And the name-calling? While permitted in this forum, it really only marks your weak mind and your even weaker 9/11 arguments.
Go away and let the adults (Eric Conley and I) have a worthy discussion.
thanks you in advance. //
x59 Elizabeth Tague : your OPINION means FUCK ALL
2017-12-08
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague YOu are NOT an expert ... your OPINION means FUCK ALL
{mcb: Meme contains a common image of a man -- I believe a famous commedian -- in a suit and tie, beard and with hair fluffed out in a funny fashion and the words "MALE ATTENTION WHORE". }
x60 Eric Conley : I came down in the last stor
2017-12-08
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Darn - just lost my response before I posted it.
Here goes again:
Elizabeth Tague " See he is ONLY looking for traffic to his blog.
Must be starved of attention."
<<
<< He must think I came down in the last storm. Never the less my offers still stand for him:
And for others I am prepared to explin why "the Twin Towers collapses did not need CD assistance" to any person who is:
1) interested;
2) prepared to take part in coherent and honest reasoned discussion;
3) At high schooll level physics or higher.
Since Maxwell Bridges has now shown his true colours I doubt he wil take up the offer.
x61 Elizabeth Tague : Don't feed his trolling
2017-12-08
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Don't feed his trolling Eric, he truly is only hoping to entice you to his blog ...he needs the number and is too far gone to learn how wrong he is.
x62 Eric Conley : I do NOT feed trolls
2017-12-08
Eric Conley
Eric Conley No worry Elizabeth. I have his measure and I do NOT feed trolls.
x63 Maxwell C. Bridges : earnest and sincere truth seeker
2017-12-08
Eric Conley Good to hear! Because I am not a troll. I am an earnest and sincere truth seeker. I'm not a bot, either. (I'm on the fence about whether or not Ms. Elizabeth Tague is a bot from the promptness of her replies, lack of depth in her reasoning, and her unchanging algorithms.) Can you please turn her off for our coming rational discussion? Tell her to take a break. //
x64 Alex Gillis : seems low even by...
2017-12-08
Alex Gillis
Alex Gillis Elizabeth Tague it is actually 'snicker' Due to your error I had to check to see if there was any indication of Maxwell Bridges color on his Facebook. That seems low even by
x65 Sam Haschets : will be watching
2017-12-08
Sam Haschets
Sam Haschets I will be watching
x66 Maxwell C. Bridges : polluted the other branch
Dear Mr. Eric Conley, seeing how Mr. Elizabeth Tague has so polluted the other branch with her off-topic rants, let us continue our fine discussion here.
You wrote,
+++ quote
"And for others I am prepared to explin why "the Twin Towers collapses did not need CD assistance" to any person who is:
1) interested;
2) prepared to take part in coherent and honest reasoned discussion;
3) At high schooll level physics or higher.
+++ end quote
Please begin here, Mr. Conley. (1) I am interested in your explanation of the WTC annihilation not requiring CD assistance; (2) I am prepared to take part in coherent and honest reasoned discussion; and (3) I am at high schooll level physics or higher.
Because it seems that you want to take on ALL of the 9/11 Truthers with this boast, then maybe your valiant and beneficial efforts should get more birds at once: my premise of FGNW and A&E911 Truth.
For example, A&E911 Truth wrote the article "BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7." I quote them in section 1 of my work.
+++ quote
A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
+++ end quote
http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/
Please discuss the above.
//
x67 Maxwell C. Bridges : nano-thermite crowd has been a tough one to shake a stick at
2017-12-08
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Conly,
As a 9/11 Debunker, I imagine that the nano-thermite (NT) crowd has been a tough one to shake a stick at. Then you'll be happy to see the ammunition I give you in section 2 through 5 in debunking it (as the primary means of annihilation.)
2. Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow
3. Running the numbers on NT
4. Test the Samples
5. Sleight of Hand
But starting in section 6, "Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires", evidence from various sources are presented that have to be addressed by any 9/11 conspiracy theory-du-jour -- including your (assumed) premise of no controlled demolition, no added energy whatsoever.
Hint: gravity and jet fuel (and diesel gas tanks) cannot explain those pesky under-rubble hot-spots.
Take your time. My computer time will be limited to certain periods over the weekend, if at all. Not running away; just forewarning about not to expect prompt replies. I have a life.
//
x68 William Daniel Burgett : No physics has ever been defied
2017-12-08
William Daniel Burgett
1. Free fall isn't a speed, it's a Newtonian mechanic of acceleration.
2. Falling buildings tend to crush things, go figure...
3. No physics has ever been defied. It's literally impossible.
x69 Alex Gillis : slow due to resistance of lower floors
2017-12-08
Alex Gillis
Alex Gillis Falling buildings tend to slow due to resistance of lower floors... Physics... Falling objects tend to slow or stop due to resistance of lower objects.
x70 Maxwell C. Bridges : No physics on 9/11 was defied, because energy was added.
Dear Mr. Burgett,
You misquote. It should be "free fall speeds", plural. Acceleration is the change velocity (speed).
True that falling buildings tend to crush things. The issue is that this is an energy sink. Ejecting content is an energy sink (and also takes away mass of the pile driver.) The observed 9/11 pulverization is a huge energy sink (and the pile driver's mass is no longer a cohesive whole.) Crushing pulverization subtracts from the energy that is available for a portion of a building to fall at free-fall, or gravitational acceleration. Therein lies the rub on 9/11, because NIST admits this happened. (Refer to WTC-7; 100 feet of symmetric collapse indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration.)
No physics on 9/11 was defied, because energy was added.
//
x71 Alex Gillis : Piledriver is a euphemism
2017-12-08
Alex Gillis
Alex Gillis Piledriver is a euphemism much like dustification. The top floors cannot turn into a Piledriver... That is against the laws of physics. what did the top floors do? Jump up and down to assume this Piledriver stance. That is against the laws of physics.
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : top floors were not a pile driver
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Alex Gillis, I agree. Those defending the OCT need to answer to the fact that the top floors were not a pile driver. In fact, they were decimated before the wave of annihilation passed the floors where the aircraft impacted.
//
x73 Jordan Dale : present the demonstrable evidence
2017-12-08
Jordan Dale
Jordan Dale I’m still waiting for someone, anyone to present the demonstrable evidence, wether tangible or physical of deployed nuclear device. I haven’t yet without being called an “idiot” or “stupid” or even blocked. Perhaps one day
x74 Alex Gillis : easily found on in the web
2017-12-08
Alex Gillis
Alex Gillis I have seen theories. easily found on in the web. Israelis utilize them. Backpack nukes have been around for a long time. Smaller than that is possible. What would the effects of a 2L bottle sized nuke be...and would we recognize it?
x75 Jordan Dale : a device that leaves no trace
2017-12-08
Jordan Dale
Jordan Dale “We” should considering that those things leave all kinds of evidence of the physical and tangible kind unless we’re talking about a device that leaves no trace
x76 Maxwell C. Bridges : read the homework assignment
Dear Mr. Jordan Dale, I won't call your attention to your intelligence when I remind you that the top level article -- written by yours truly -- is the STARTING POINT for this discussion. You will not get passing grades if you don't read the homework assignment.
In your reading, "seek and ye shall find." I'll not waste everyone's time here re-hashing the base FGNW premises. I'm here to defend FGNW or become convinced of something else through the rational discussion.
//
x77 Sam Haschets : not doing the home work
2017-12-08
Sam Haschets
Sam Haschets How do explosives in the bottom of the building, no matter the type, start the collapse at the top
(and yes, I am not doing the home work, you can explain it here)
x78 Jordan Dale : the same thing
2017-12-08
Jordan Dale
Jordan Dale I was just going to say the same thing. If you’re going to defend it, it should be rather easy to explain it right?
x79 Maxwell C. Bridges : you lazy students
2017-12-08
Ho-hum. Skip to the conclusion or summary of the above article, you lazy student.
+++Quote
A "standard" nuclear weapon typically has a heat wave, a blast wave, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. All of these are features that can be tweaked or mitigated in the implementation (e.g., EMP inside a steel box). To be sure, an FGNW is designed with the trade-off of sacrificing much of its heat wave and blast wave in order to release energy at given wavelengths in a targeted fashion.
The multiple tactical FGNW of 9/11 each were small directed energy weapons that were aimed where they wanted the energy: up. This can be observed in the "fountain" effects of the debris mid-way through the towers' pulverization. [Some of the damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles could be attributed to FGNW becoming misaligned in the destruction.]
The radiation signature of a FGNW? Primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived - contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
+++End Quote
//
x80 Alex Gillis : radiation sniffing dogs
2017-12-08
Alex Gillis
Alex Gillis Were Geiger counters used at ground zero? Maybe they had radiation sniffing dogs too. lol. Some people believe there were bomb sniffing dogs used to look for survivors at ground zero... to look for survivors...!!! Some in this group use that as proof there was no explosives in the debris.
x81 Sam Haschets : energy travel up
2017-12-08
Sam Haschets
Sam Haschets How does the energy travel up (only) for 1000 feet and then travel outward?
x82 Maxwell C. Bridges : Please read section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift
2017-12-08
For shame, Mr. Sam Haschets, for not having read the assignment (top-level article). You try to mal-frame this to be like the Russian disinfo peddler, Dimitri K., who boasts of deep under-ground nukes, but one per tower.
My premise is 6-12 per towers, close in design theory to a neutron bomb, which is also mostly fusion.
Energy only has to travel up from its destination point some small time period after the one above it detonated and directed its energy up.
Please read section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift.
//
x83 Leslie Crofford : 1.5 kiloton would leave a size hole
2017-12-08
Leslie Crofford
Leslie Crofford Maxwell Bridges You're saying 6 to 12 nukes per tower? Thats too many. A 1.5 kiloton would leave a size hole that was left at the towers. There was a 250 and a 300 foot diameter, 30 foot depth or so overlapping there and I got that from this site. I don't know the exact page that info is on.
https://archive.org/stream/CapabilitiesOfNuclearWeapons1964/Capabilities%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons%201964%20edition#page/n57/mode/2up
x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : none of you can RTFM
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Leslie Crofford, please inform me if I guessed improperly in your gender, and I will correct it.
What is it with all of you wannabe debunkers that none of you can RTFM!
You wrote: "You're saying 6 to 12 nukes per tower?"
NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING! Such sloppy use of language together with your link proves that you and the other debunking half-wits are still trying to frame the nuclear means inappropriately into big and grand nukes.
FGNW - Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons. Read the article. Or just read section 14. Dive deeper into my supporting links. If you have issues with FGNW, it isn't with me, it is with Dr. Andre Gsponer (and all of the silent nuclear physicists on the government payroll who developed them.)
This is not about debunking nukes. It is about debunking FGNW. Can't do that legitimately if you don't know what the premise is. Please rectify this deficiency in your argument before you post again.
//
x85 Adam Fitzsimmons : isn't anywhere near the truth
2017-12-08
Adam Fitzsimmons
Adam Fitzsimmons Maxwell Bridges
What you are proposing, isn't anywhere near the truth. It's called fiction.
x86 Maxwell C. Bridges : good at hypnotic suggestion, but not good at debunking an argument
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons, you're good at hypnotic suggestion, but not good at debunking an argument because you continue to avoid becoming well versed with your discussion opponent's substantiating material.
Because FB keeps munging the on-page URL targets, I'll just give you the reference of section 14, "FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift" and expect that you are smart enough to go to the URL of the article that anchors this whole episode of "Debunkers vs Truthers."
At section 14 (and throughout) you'll find not only my words, but references to other sources. They clearly put what I'm proposing into the realm of "non-fiction."
//
x87 William Daniel Burgett : did lose velocity
2017-12-08
William Daniel Burgett
William Daniel Burgett Alex, by definition, the building did lose velocity as it struck each floor, however the change is so small that your human eyes cannot perceive it. Those floors were not designed to withstand the upper portion of the building falling on top of them. Since the loss of velocity was so small, all you can see with your human eyes is the much greater effect that gravity had in increasing the falling object's velocity toward the ground.
Nothing about the twin towers falling due to the impact of the planes and the fires defies physics.
William Daniel Burgett
William Daniel Burgett Maxwell, I wasn't quoting you. Speed is not acceleration, and making the word 'speeds' doesn't change that. The two are an order of magnitude apart in terms of meaning. There is no such thing as free fall speeds, it's free fall acceleration. This I'd an important distinction. The buildings didn't accelerate at free fall, not even controlled demolitions do that. The only way to fall faster than free fall is to have thrust, so unless you believe there were rockets at the top of the building burning and pointed toward the ground or that there was a vacuum or mechanical pulling device below the building, there is no physically possible way for the building to fall faster than free fall.
The ejection is purely because of air displacement.
The crushing did very little in terms of reducing the energy potential of the falling building since the floors were not designed to withstand the upper floors falling together onto them.
WTC-7 did not fall symmetrically, it fell from North to South at a slight tilt, this is due to the damage that the North Tower imposed in WTC 7.
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : is to have thrust
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Burgett, Contrary to your hypnotic suggestions, the WTC towers fell at accelerations very close to gravitational acceleration, and is observable & measureable in most videos. If you are stupid enough to argue this point, then your beef isn't with me but with NIST (not a very noted "Twoofer") because they are the ones reporting the number of seconds it took for each tower to be decimated.
You write: "The only way to fall faster than free fall is to have thrust..."
Agreed, Mr. Burgett. They did have thrust in rocketing towards the ground. My premise is that the FGNW were affixed 10-20 floors apart on alternating sides of what later has become identified as "the spire." The destructive force -- emission of neutrons -- was aimed upwards and can be thought of as "rocket thrust".
Please refer to section 14, because therein you will become familiar with some of the different tweaking that can be done to FGNW for different design output goals. And here is a term you should look up: "ablate."
When the highly energetic neutrons would hit the leading edge, of say, the face of a steel beam, that edge (and then some) would vaporize so quickly that a shock wave is induced into the rest of the steel beam that violently destroys the rest of it. And because the shock wave originates within the material (and isn't transmitted through air like much of the destructive shockwave of conventional explosives), it would be surprisingly quiet.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Burgett, you wrote more hypnotic suggestion with: "WTC-7 did not fall symmetrically, it fell from North to South at a slight tilt,..."
Game playing. You look at the roof line of WTC-7 and watch as it accelerates to the ground as a cohesive whole that has over 100 feet (8 floors) that is indinguishable from gravitational acceleration; this comes from NIST, so direct your ire accordingly.
//
x89 William Daniel Burgett : close to gravitational acceleration is exactly what one would expect
2017-12-08
William Daniel Burgett Maxwell, close to gravitational acceleration is exactly what one would expect of any falling object. NIST is correct, they haven't reported the wrong fall times. You are expecting more resistance than what is there, which suggests to me that you are no familiar with the designs of the twin towers specifically.
Let's say, for example, that a newer skyscraper collapsed in the same manner. We would expect a great deal of resistance given the robust concrete view of the building, meaning that the building should only partially collapse. This is the difference as the twin towers didn't have a robust concrete core. In fact, the tube-in-tube design of the buildings allowed for a minimum use of materials such as concrete and steel. The arrangement of the columns allowed for large and open office spaces, but when the planes hit, they knocked out dozens of structural columns and stripped fire proofing from the trusses thanks to the lack of resistance from what would otherwise have been more of a honeycomb of columns rather than the tube-in-tube design we observe in the twin towers. Since the core of the building wasn't particularly substantial, the concrete crumbled under the weight of the upper building.
There was no nuclear weapon, I address your silly claim in a different comment.
The video you are referring to of tower 7 is taken from the North facing side of the building, making it difficult to observe the tilt. It did not fall symmetrically.
x90 Maxwell C. Bridges : Allah breaking his own laws of the universe
2017-12-08
Mr. Burgett wrote: "...close to gravitational acceleration is exactly what one would expect of any falling object."
True for objects falling in air. When we're talking THREE over-designed steel structures that were the path of maximum resistance and then observing portions of annihilation exhibiting anything "close to gravitational acceleration" (or WTC-7 "indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration" according to NIST) through the path of maximum resistance, only adding energy makes it less of "a miracle from Allah proving his supreme greatness, you damn infidel."
Did you see our glorious leaders switching to Islam for what Allah enabled his (coke-snorting, woman chasing) true believers to accomplish against the mightiest of nations? No. They propped Muslims up as the boogie-man to get the public fearful.
No, they knew it wasn't Allah breaking his own laws of the universe, because they were the ones who dictated that energy be added.
Pulverization has always been an unexplainable issue for the debunkers. Alone, flying airplanes into the towers would have been sufficient to meet the aspirations of external terrorists against the mighty demon empire. Internal terrorists, though, had complete destruction as a goal, though, particularly for the WTC-7 that held irreplaceable SEC records such as on active cases ultimately dismissed (can you say "payoff"). And geez, that was a secure facility.
Still, that pesky pulverization. Didn't have to happen; Las Vegas demolition experts with sufficient time can get buildings to do remarkable things in their demolition. For starters, they could have made it look NOT like a controlled demolition, slowed it down, larger pieces, asymmetrical, etc. They didn't, because bomb sniffing dogs only had a few days holiday before 9/11, insufficient to plan.
Pulverization could not have been a goal of operation; it is such a giveaway. Pulverization was a side-effect of the mechanisms chosen.
And by golly, the US military has more than its share of itchy trigger-fingered majors on up, practically literally dying to test real-world some of the wonders in the US arsenals. And just how low-radiation were these new FGNW really? Let's find out.
But this will only be successful unless we apply propaganda techniques on the US citizens and the world. "Of course it wasn't nuclear weapons! The pulverization in a controlled fashion at near free-fall acceleration was a result of gravity alone."
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they've been fooled."~Mark Twain
//
x91 George Secher : have been debunked repeatedly
2017-12-08
Any and all Truther arguments about the twins towers have been debunked repeatedly including these ones here but each believer of their skewed thinking and rational feels that their words will say it better so they each "toot their own horn" starting the cycle al over again. Much of it defies mechanical common sence as they rationalize their victimhood into their arguments. The good news is how we've learned the mechanics of all conflicts and wars so in the future we will be better able to avoid views developed from our egos.
x92 Maxwell C. Bridges : Cough up links
Humor me, Mr. George Secher. Cough up links to all of your reference material that debunks my premise. Hell, why don't you read my premise so that you are familiar with all of the evidence that good old OCT needs to address.
I'm a fan of Section 7, "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies." How were they achieved by jet fuel and gravity....See More
LikeShow more reactions
x93 George Secher : all throughout these discussions
2017-12-08
George Secher
George Secher The links? It's debunked all throughout these discussions - they are there to be read. I don't understand your lingo in your remark just above but I did read your post which was what prompted me place my remarks here as I did, it's much the same recycled stuff that has been repeatedly debunked but each person that states it feels they nailed it better and so it goes on ognosium .
x94 Maxwell C. Bridges : I'm not even sure you know what "it" is
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Secher, you write: "It's debunked all throughout these discussions - they are there to be read."
I'm not even sure you know what "it" is. The subject of this discussion is Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons. If indeed FGNW have been discussed and debunked in these very forums, then by golly it ought to be an easy task for you to find them and plop their URLs into your next comment. I'm not going to do your busy work.
I seriously doubt that anybody (a) published a link to my article here and (b) then had the debunkers do a rational take-down. And therefore, these (a) & (b) data points might become the first in the trend line of your dishonesty.
Furthermore, whether in this forums or elsewhere on the internet, please cough up the links where the OCT mentions evidence from Section 7, "Horse shoes, arches, and steel doobies" and explains how gravity did it.
//
x95 William Daniel Burgett : so disconnected from reality
2017-12-08
William Daniel Burgett
William Daniel Burgett Your proposition of a nuclear device is so disconnected from reality that it's hard to tell if you're a Poe or not. Given that some might initially believe this, here's a few problems:
A fourth generation nuclear weapon is a fusion based weapon with no fissile trigger, such as a laser or a fission bomb. Such a weapon does not exist since we do not currently have any method of fusing deuterium with tritium without the use of a fissile trigger.
Ignoring the fact that fourth-gen nukes don't exist, there is also the issue that if one was used, NYC would have been almost completely destroyed. The buildings would not have been crushed, burned, or pulverized. You wouldn't see ash and dust and rebar and such. The buildings would have been vaporized, essentially. The byproducts of such an event would be hydrogen, helium, oxygen, water, and a small amount of iron.
Ignoring the destructive capability, the cost of building such a weapon would far exceed the price of flying planes into it, ergo no shadow government would waste such a valuable weapon to start a war if they can just fly planes into the buildings.
x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : grossly mal-framing the capabilities of FGNW
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Burgett, unless you are a paid-to-post agent of the realm, you are under no obligation to fling insults at me as your opening gambit, or period for that matter. Rational discussion; not flame wars. In fact, it makes you look intellectual weak, pokes readers in the eyes, and causes them not to want to read any more thereby removing the opportunity of subsequent words to change an unworthy assessment of you. Kindly remove this deficiency from your future comments, shall we.
Although FGNW are primarily fusion based, this does not mean that they didn't have a fission trigger. In fact, section 11 Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al talks about what was found in the dust samples. USGS had the most comprehensive, although still wanting. Low and behold another research Jeff Prager look at those reports and highlighted all of the measure trace elements of some form of fission happening.
You wrote: "Ignoring the fact that fourth-gen nukes don't exist..."
This is not a fact. Google the name "Andre Gsponer". Save yourself some time and read my section 14. What is a fact, is that government has always been hush-hush about its exact nuclear capabilities. I believe that they were used several times since 9/11 in various places, attributed to other actors. They might have even been first deployed in Oklahoma City.
You continued: "... the issue that if one was used, NYC would have been almost completely destroyed."
RTFM, Mr. Burgett. You are grossly mal-framing the capabilities of FGNW, trying to conflate it with large nukes. Do your research. (And if you're astute, you might even find my raw research into it.) The whole point of neutron based devices is that by allowing the neutrons to escape in a targeted fashion, it greatly reduces the side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. So, no. NYC would not have been completely destroyed with just one.
You continue to speculate without substantiation: "... the cost of building such a weapon would far exceed the price of flying planes into it, ergo no shadow government would waste such a valuable weapon to start a war if they can just fly planes into the buildings."
First of all, read section 27 that says: "The US Government took the position many decades ago to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available in publications, because publishing such could enable those with bad intentions against us. Those who wish to study, and have professions involving, nuclear science in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties, or they are left out of all of the interesting research."
The US Government nuclear program was not some "jobs creation program for the overly educated PhD" and had no expectation of ever producing anything usable.
You keep saying FGNW don't exist, based solely on what is publicly available. I say that what is publicly available is the tip of the iceberg to what is out there.
Secondly, we're talking about a dozen per towers. Not one. Stop malframing things. Makes you look dishonest.
Thirdly, the government has had plenty of funding for black operations, thanks to the Black Eagle and Marco gold reserves never repatriated with their rightful owners after WWII.
Fourthly on September 10, 2001 (not a typo, the tenth), Donald Rumsfeld announced in a press conference that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 Trillion in transactions. Coincidentally, the only group to have moved into the newly renovated Pentagon wing was the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) who was investigating these missing funds. All of their agents and records were casualties on 9/11.
I could go on, but suffice it to say, they had plenty of money both for airplanes and a few dozen FGNW that they had 60 years to tweak.
You continue to speculate without substantiation: "... no shadow government would waste such a valuable weapon to start a war if they can just fly planes into the buildings."
You cannot prove that the TWO plane impacts caused the THREE towers to implode so spectacularly. The NIST report on the towers was limited in scope to explain a remote possibility of jet impacts and jet fuel & office furnishing fires being sufficient to INITIATE their annihilation. Their report did not address any of the anomalies in the subsequent annihilation, like the energy sinks of content pulverization, content ejection, and destructive wave at near gravitational acceleration. Or the under-rubble hot-spots that burned for literally months.
To your point, ~yes~, a shadow government would and did waste a few dozen FGNW to start several wars of acquisition, such were the huge profits to be gained. Just a business decision. Got to spend money to get it.
Moreover, all allies and enemies know or suspect the truth, not just of the FGNW weapons used, but on the willingness of the radical US government to deploy them on themselves and then blatantly lie about it. Other nations opposing the US would not far well.
The good news in all of this was that the reports proved the weapons had relatively low radiation, made even lower by complicit agencies. Pity about the good hearted first responders who later suffered from it. See sections 19 and 20.
//
x97 George Secher : a newer element of 4th generation "atomic weapons"
2017-12-08
OK, seeing that you did add a newer element of 4th generation "atomic weapons", (far fetched as it may be), Maxwell Bridges, I will explain why the disbelieved simple gravity is in fact the sound logical cause: Mechanical dynamics Maxwell are always simple but we seem to usually complicate things within our minds by needlessly putting "microscopes" to simplicity causing appearances of complexity when none actually exists. It is established that for every 12 feet decent of a falling object the impact weight it develops is an additional aprovmate 4 times is standing weigh till it gets to close to maximum free fall speed of around 112 MPH. at which point its impact weight starting at around the 115 feet point would be around 55 times its standing weight. Then when you factor in the additional weight added with each falling mass every 12 feet, (per floor), as well as its increasing inertia, the structures resistance of floors, walls, framing etc only slowing it down by 15% or so was about right - (negligible considering the weight, speed, and inertia developed). Thus all other explanations are eliminated because the result could have only been as weight, gravity and velocity dictated. If we wish to be anal I suppose I could get exact figures and do the computations but even without them it becomes plain that it only ould chave been that simple logical way.
x98 Maxwell C. Bridges : Your analysis match neither the observable evidence nor the known structural over-design
2017-12-08
Dear Mr. Secher, you wrote: "It is established that for every 12 feet decent of a falling object the impact weight it develops is an additional aprovmate 4 times is standing weigh till it gets to close to maximum free fall speed of around 112 MPH. at which point its impact weight starting at around the 115 feet point would be around 55 times its standing weight..."
I'm going to cut your distracting and ignorant ramble off right there.
It is established that the architects, designers, and engineers who worked on the WTC were even better versed in the underlying physics than you (or I). Not only did they understand all of the ramifications of your statement, they implemented this into their finished product.
The towers were grossly over-designed for both static and dynamic loads (e.g., wind, things falling).
Case it point, the wall assemblies were composed of three hollow box columns connected together by spandrals. Each hollow box column had four sides made out of sheets of steel, say, 1.5 feet wide by 30 feet long by a certain thickness. The thickness of the metal in the assembly varied depending on where the assembly was to be installed: from thick in the lower levels to much thinner at upper floors, because the upper wall assemblies didn't need to support as much weight.
Your analysis match neither the observable evidence nor the known structural over-design.
The upper block of both towers was torn apart by other forces before its now-pulverized and no-longer-cohesive mass could act on floors below the impact point, which were designed stronger.
Go to section 7 and explain how gravity created the horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies".
If your official conspiracy theory (OCT) doesn't address all of the evidence, or does so in a shitty and shoddy way, then if you were an honest and sincere truth seeker, you would be looking into the real explanation.
Oh, and before I forget. Don't bother with the computational analysis. The government already had that done. The issue is, they refuse to make their computer models public. Why? Because they had to grossly over-drive parameters in their model to come close to matching the observable evidence. You can think of "over-drive" as being equivalent to "energy added."
//
x99 William Daniel Burgett : Poe is not an insult, it's a type of parody
2017-12-10
Maxwell, Poe is not an insult, it's a type of parody.
Fourth gen nuclear weapons, by definition, do not have a fissile trigger. If you are talking about a thermonuclear weapon, that would be second gen.
We literally do not have a method of triggering fusion without fission, ergo fourth gen weapons don't exist.
If you fuse one gram of tritium with one gram of deuterium, it would output 1.79751036 × 10^17 Joules of energy, which is the equivalent of 42.9615287 megatons of TNT. For reference, the bomb at Hiroshima output the equivalent of a mere 15 kilotons of TNT.
So if you used the bare minimum amount of fuel and detonated this fusion weapon and got 10% of the yield capability, the bomb would still be more destructive than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Your assumption that a fourth gen nuke was used is just wrong by several orders of magnitude.
A neutron bomb is not fourth gen. A neutron bomb also has more destructive capability than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
The method for enriching radioactive substances is well-understood and freely available information to the public. Happy to share a video demonstrating the process, but in short enriched radioactive material costs millions of dollars per gram to make.
Rumsfeld was referring to a sum total of transactions. The entire budget for the US government was less than $1 trillion in 2001, don't be dumb.
The towers didn't implode, implosion requires a vacuum. Again, it's genuinely difficult to tell if you're trolling or you really are that misinformed.
Eric Conley
Eric Conley William Daniel Burgett "Poe is not an insult, it's a type of parody..."
<< Agreed. And one which arguably demands better intellectual skills than simply arguing the facts.
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : tweaked depending upon the design goals
Dear Mr. Burgett, what I know is that "Po" in some languages refers to "ass".
You wrote: "Fourth gen nuclear weapons, by definition, do not have a fissile trigger."
Kindly provide your sources for this misinformation. Please review the material in Section 14 yet again.
Your mal-framing of FGNW is a cheat. FGNW come in a wide variety, tweaked depending upon the design goals, such as:
- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
- Heat the surface of a material.
- Accelerate or compress a material.
- Transfer momentum to a material.
- Heat the volume of a material.
- Energize a working material.
- Forge and project missiles.
- Form and send high-velocity jets.
- Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it. If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
You wrote: "A neutron bomb is not fourth gen."
While it is true that neutron bombs are not fourth generation in the strict history of when certain things were achieved, deploying them in a different manner with different controls starts to put them there.
You wrote: "A neutron bomb also has more destructive capability than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima."
It depends on how you look it at and many other factors that you are trying to munge together in an inappropriate way WITHOUT SOURCES. In terms of a destructive heat wave, blast wave, and EMP from a neutron device, you would be wrong. The whole point of releasing the neutrons was to stop them bombarding the core and making huge detonations. In terms of highly energetic neutrons being impacted on targets, then you might be right, because they can achieve any of the bulleted design goals from above.
+++Quote
FGND are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can product direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized DT-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
+++End Quote
//
x101 George Secher : a victim mentality
2017-12-10
Maxwell Bridges, I'm am not concerned with your comparing my evaluation with the official ones. I'm sure that the towers were as would be expected, over built to handle 2, 3 , 4, even 10 times normal occupied weight loads with what ever very sound designs they used but we are talking at least 50 multiples its occupied weight and so at that point the souundness of design becomes inconsequential. We must bear in mind that since the jet fuel/ carbon fire exacerbated by the large vent, (caused by the collisions), inside a containment encouraged release of much of its BTU CONTENT all a once in its short 20 minute burn causing far hotter flames and conditions as would other wise happen under conventional circumstances. The result was very weakened red hot steel for the 4 to 6 floors affected allowing the descending load a head start to build up the speed and inertia required to bust the lower floors as well, that were not not as affected by heat. It is very clear in my mind - nothing fancy was needed to perpetuate the collapse. As far as my producing the debunking examples its there throughout for all to see just as this is but they are ignored by the crowd that is so very effected by their victim mentality that their judgment is greatly affected. What I just explained is but one mere example, (there are many others here), and in my judgment should be theoretically sound enough to overcome all the disbelief of the doubters here and a far more likely scenario than an exotic theory requiring the genocidists to jump through unlikely hoops. Tell me if there is anything I overlooked that suggests otherwise and I will address it, I'm open to any sound views. :)
And by the way Maxwell Bridges, I am not that impressed with "the architects, designers, and engineers who worked on the WTC" as you seem to be for they are all "pencils guys" that think inside of the box of their training. There are no real experts for the occurrences regarding the mechanics and dynamics of the disaster, only ones who designed the buildings and of course the design did not factor in the jet fuel factor so they as well would want it to be a controlled demolition.
In my opinion, anyone who feels that 9/ 11 was an inside job Leslie does to at least some extent have a victim mentality but no I don't aim that at people individually, I try to be respectful to all people.
x102 Leslie Crofford : what are your calculations when pieces of the tower get ejected
2017-12-10
So what are your calculations when pieces of the tower get ejected horizontally before the collapse starts?
George Secher You tend to use that on me quite often. Are you saying that it only happens to truthers? Like no debunkers ever had victim mentality happen to them? Maybe it happened to you.
x103 George Secher : all subject to all sorts of negative influences
2017-12-10
Trip catapulting. From those heights even a 45 degree angle would take items perhaps 600 to a 1000 ft way from the sight. Simple - but not south those posessing much negativity.
We are all subject to all sorts of negative influences - we are all different.
x104 Leslie Crofford & Goerge Secher : so exceptional
2017-12-10
Leslie Crofford
Leslie Crofford George Secher But George, you're so exceptional with your words of wisdom, you bestow upon us. You'd give Ghandi or Buddha a run for their money.
George Secher
George Secher My efforts are to show that no one has license to the truth - that we each have our own and that our negative polarities effect clarity as demonstrated in the example of 9/ 11. The ACTUAL terorists "came from" victim mentality as well causing them to ...See More
Leslie Crofford
Leslie Crofford George Secher The actual hijackers were used as patsies, probably from their victim mentality. Or maybe its from a foreign power who interferes with their religion, home. Or sides with the enemy. After all what do you think their justification was to attack the towers?
George Secher
George Secher OK, the ones they were patsies for then.
x105 Maxwell C. Bridges : making statements that don't agree with the evidence
2017-12-10
Dear Mr. Secher, I agree that you and other OCTers have a "victim mentality" (because that was the aim of the propaganda), exhibit copious levels of blind patriotism, and got suckered into desiring revenge against "them" (the Muslim boogey-men) even though no valid case was made.
You have several problems with discussing 9/11 here, starting with making statements that don't agree with the evidence.
Tell us, oh wise one in physics, how did the upper 20 stories accordion in on themselves, going SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY from 100% resistance to only 36% resistance (as calculated by David Chandler and others for the acceleration being 64% gravitational acceleration)?
Where did the energy come from? What pile-driver acted on those 20 stories to accomplish this? Whereas a solid mass falling from a given height generates lots of kinetic energy (numbers you calculated), what solid mass fell onto the upper 20 stories?
Pulverization and ejection of content are observed in the earliest moments of the destruction wave passing the level of impact. Pulverization is a huge energy sink greater than the potential energy of the upper 20 stories regardless of whether they are considered a solid cohesive mass or a shredded pancaked accordion. The issue remains that if the roof line is going to hit the level of the street through the path of greatest resistance in times within the error margin for gravitational acceleration (as per NIST) while also ejecting and pulverizing things...
Well, gee, Mr. Secher, surely your physics equations would detect a gross imbalance in energy requirements that can't be explained by the stored potential energy of the 20 stories. I don't see you scratching your head and muttering "energy had to be added." I also don't hear you proclaiming the greatness of Allah or recommending conversion to Islam for Allah's ability to bend his own laws of the universe THREE times on that fateful day.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
//
x106 Jone Lailai : patently an irrationally absurd premise
2017-12-10
Maxwell Bridges, your opinion doesn’t warrant “rational debate” as it’s patently an irrationally absurd premise.
It is analogous to me claiming that a group of highly trained elves with tiny metalworking tools snuck into the buildings and chiseled their little hearts out until the structure failed. Please engage in a rational debate about this.
Your “opinion” does however exhibit all the hallmarks of paranoid delusion. I would counsel that you seek professional medical advice. Your condition can be treated and responds well to therapy and medication where appropriate.
x107 Maxwell C. Bridges : no links to substantiate the statement
2017-12-10
Dear Ms. Lailai, Bravo! Keep up the good work.
But under some other article from now on. Although you provided no links to substantiate the statement that FGNW on 9/11 is "patently an irrationally absurd premise", I will take you at your word that this is your belief.
As such, you have nothing more to contribute here without engaging opinions that "exhibit all the hallmarks of paranoid delusion." Wouldn't want to inflict that upon you. So, kindly STFU and stop trying to instigate a distracting flame war. Ho-hum.
Rational debate involves studying your debate opponents work, its sources, etc. and discovering the weaknesses (and strengths). This is the assignment, and your pre-dispositions make you unfit for the task. Out of your league. Run along now. Buh-bye.
//
x108 George Secher : They suffer
2017-12-10
They suffer from victim mentality Jone Lailai, best to be understanding. <3
x109 Maxwell C. Bridges : remove the unproductive distractions
2017-12-10
Dear Mr. George Secher, please delete your comment (and this reply). Let's remove the unproductive distractions from the task of legitimately taking FGNW out of contention the good old fashion way: with research, reason, logic, data, math, science, and rhetoric. //
x110 George Secher : Control issues
2017-12-10
George Secher
George Secher Control issues Maxwell Bridges?
George Secher
George Secher I'll read and respond to you comments latter when I get back from shopping.
x111 Maxwell C. Bridges : purge your efforts that aren't worthy
2017-12-10
Dear Mr. George Secher, I'm doing you a favor by giving you the wise counsel to purge your efforts that aren't worthy of the discussion that this thread is nobly trying to legitimately debunk or accept as Truth. This fork in the discussion about victim mentality isn't worthy of pursuing here. //
x112 William Daniel Burgett : don't have to debunk nonsense
2017-12-10
William Daniel Burgett
William Daniel Burgett Maxwell, I don't have to debunk nonsense, especially when your own words do it for me.
x113 Maxwell C. Bridges : you have nothing more to contribute
2017-12-10
Dear Mr. Burgett, Although you provided no links to substantiate the statement that FGNW is "nonsense", I will take you at your word that this is your belief.
As such, you have nothing more to contribute here without engaging these nonsense opinions. Wouldn't want to inflict that upon you. So, kindly STFU and stop trying to instigate a distracting flame war. Ho-hum.
Rational debate involves studying your debate opponents work, its sources, etc. and discovering the weaknesses (and strengths). This is the assignment, and your pre-dispositions make you unfit for the task. Out of your league. Run along now. Buh-bye.
//
x114 George Secher : largely debunked in the course of conversation
2017-12-10
George Secher
George Secher Correct William Daniel Burgett but it not just that, 9/ 11 was over 16 years ago and we still don't employ the technology beyond testing and now due to most of the other questionable logic of te Truthers have been largely debunked in the course of conversation, here we come with complex alternative rational all due to their not trusting "family". And that William is the lesson of 9/ 11 - we allow our internal negativity to direct our thoughts and then ultimately actions.
x115 Maxwell C. Bridges : premise: largely debunked in the course of conversation
2017-12-10
Dear Mr. Secher, please make a top level posting stating your premise that "most of the other questionable logic of te Truthers have been largely debunked in the course of conversation."
It does not belong here.
The comments here should be attacking section-by-section, source-by-source the referenced article above, because the goal is to legitimately debunk (or validate) FGNW used on 9/11.
Once you have your new posting up, please come back and delete your comment (and this one), because it not only distracts from both our goals, it casts you in a bad light as being incapable of staying on topic and taking FGNW out of commission legitimately.
//
x116 Calvin Kovatch : No trace or Hard radiation was found
2017-12-10
Calvin Kovatch
Calvin Kovatch No trace or Hard radiation was found no Gamma at
x117 Maxwell C. Bridges : foundation for the no-nukes premise
Dude! Mr. Calvin Kovatch! The basis for discussion is given above in the article. You obviously didn't read it. I'll give you this time not only a pass, but also a hint. Read sections 9-12. They effectively shred the reports that are the foundation for the no-nukes premise.
//
x118 Calvin Kovatch : Strontium smoke detectors
2017-12-10
Calvin Kovatch
Calvin Kovatch It you Mean the Strontium that came from the 1000's of smoke detectors all over the site...
x119 Maxwell C. Bridges : rely on shoddy or non-existent reports
2017-12-10
Calvin Kovatch Show me the reports where they attribute Strontium to only smoke detectors! In fact, show me the reports that measured promptly, systematically, thoroughly all over the WTC site that definitively show no radiation.
Too much "debunking" tries to rely on shoddy or non-existent reports to make their claims.
Debunk my sources. (Although I think Jeff Prager may have moved is analysis of the USGS dust samples from what I linked.)
//
x120 Calvin Kovatch : Smoke detectors contain Strontium
2017-12-10
Calvin Kovatch
Calvin Kovatch Do you deny that Smoke detectors contain Strontium
x121 Maxwell C. Bridges : Barium and Strontium
2017-12-10
Do you deny:
+++ Quote
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.
+++ EndQuote
//
x122 Calvin Kovatch : carbon monoxide detectors
2017-12-10
Calvin Kovatch
Calvin Kovatch Barium and Strontium are elements found it smoke a carbon monoxide detectors .. of which there where 1000's to discount them is pure nonsense
x123 Maxwell C. Bridges : where are the government reports that speculated into smoke alarms
2017-12-10
One possible explanation, but where are the government reports that speculated into smoke alarms as the source for the Barium and Strontium that the USGS measured in significant quanties in all of its dust samples?
Oh wait! You'll find the reports where they tabulate what they measured, but no commentary on these and many other anomalous heavy elements. Also no "ah-ha moment" or "ain't that a dandy coincidence" side-bar that these are also the finger prints of nuclear involvement. Go figure?
//
x124 George Secher : the debunkment was my chosen form
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges, my statement regarding the debunkment was my chosen form, sorry my form displeases you but it also seems to be all you are capable of disparaging and I'm sure most here see through it. We feel that the Truthers arguments have been categorically debunked, you guys think not apparently due to a premiss of victimhood that drives you guys. Of course I am not going to engage you on others words but what's holding you back from engaging me on my words? Go ahead, I dare you!
x125 Maxwell C. Bridges : Run along if you can't stay on topic
Dear Mr. Secher, Regardless of whether or not you ~THINK~ you can substantiate your punk-ass statement that "the Truthers arguments have been categorically debunked," such a discussion does not belong here... unless you can cough up educational links to such happenings relating to FGNW.
What's holding me back from engaging you on your boastful words? (a) They don't belong here under a discussion about FGNW. (b) You can make your own top-level posting with such boastings. (c)_ I know you are "all hat, and no cattle."
Run along if you can't stay on topic. Buh-bye.
//
x126 David F. Kyte : real controlled demolition
2017-12-11
Truthers don’t know how real controlled demolition is done
x127 Sam Beeson : Not buying it
2017-12-11
Mr. Bridges. BS. Colleges and University professors have been standing up to the government since the 60s. Further, not everyone who graduates with engineering degrees or physics degrees work in any manner for the government. But I understand why you have to assert this. Otherwise the lies that truthers tell each other don't hold up. So the fact that the more educated a person is (in any field), the less likely to believe in your nonsense, your only real recourse from that embarrassment is to say, "They're scared."
Not buying it.
x128 Maxwell C. Bridges : If those goals are no longer part of the objective...
2017-12-11
Dear Mr. Kyte, "real controlled demolition", as in, "what is conventionally done to demolish a structure" is a red-herring distraction. You see, they have the goals of safety, using as little explosives as possible and then relying on gravity, and planning it for as little clean-up as possible. As such, they start the charges at basement levels. at low points and try to put the debris into that footprint.
If those goals are no longer part of the objective, if money for explosives isn't an issue, then in Las Vegas & Hollywood fashion, they can do anything.
The problem with debunkers is they are toting an agenda, so they can never admit to any errors in anything to do with their premise, and as a result get regularly mocked as idiots for their "poor understanding of physics" in defending the OCT miracles.
//
x129 Maxwell C. Bridges : politics and money -- not the merits of science -- control things
2017-12-11
Dear Mr. Beeson, Liberal arts and history professors have been standing up to the government ON SOCIAL issues since the 1960's, but not necessarily the engineering and science professors on issues that creep into their areas of studies and when they are reliant on the government for their funding.
The more education you get, the more you recognize how much you don't know. And the more you see how politics and money -- not the merits of science -- control things.
//
x130 Maxwell C. Bridges : discussion is out of your league
2017-12-11
Dear Mrs. Tague, three separate comments each with ONE sentence and within minutes of each other is an indication of spamming. Kindly combine all three into one comment, and delete the two superflurious comments.
Secondly, seeing how you and Mr. Secher are of the belief that "Twoofer claims HAVE been debunked", then you both should be motivated to make that a top level posting AND FUCKING PROVE IT. Let's have the links.
Meanwhile, that discussion HERE remains off-topic and another deceitful trick made all the more obvious that neither of you OCT miracle believers has coughed up ONE link to document FGNW having been previously addressed here. And in your case, Mrs. Tague, you have not coughed up one paragraph or sentence that (a) demonstrates you read the article that is the foundation for this discussion, and (b) demonstrates that you debunked it.
This discussion is out of your league, Mrs. Tague. Stop polluting it. Run along elsewhere to your posting that summarizes with substantiating links all "Twoofer claims HAVE been debunked." Buh-bye.
//
x131 Rob CA : the making of Star Trek
2017-12-11
Read the making of Star Trek and in the weapons section they explain this 4th generation theory and why it was rejected. As the video explains 3rd generation is also unachievable. If this was possible we'd know about it. But the Pencil Bomb Star Trek almost used was a cool concept
x132 Maxwell C. Bridges : a link to the fictional show Star Trek?
2017-12-11
Dear Mr. Rob CA, how about you providing a link to the fictional show Star Trek? What I know is that the military often gets involved with Hollywood: best recruiting tool ever. And also the best propaganda tool.
Here's what I wrote in Section 27 "Nuclear Scientific Research".
+++Quote
The US Government took the position many decades ago to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available in publications, because publishing such could enable those with bad intentions against us. Those who wish to study, and have professions involving, nuclear science in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties, or they are left out of all of the interesting research.
...
If the US government wanted to steer the public's perceptions regarding nuclear involvement in 9/11, it could be achieved with a small group of PhDs and experts who balanced the requirements of the "message-controlling" assignment with their own personal ethics. The mistakes that they made might have been purposeful with the intent of being discovered, precisely so an article could raise public awareness to "what is really going and has been going on!"
Although most nuclear research does not get a wide public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of details that would help others' implementation. The work of Dr. Andre Gsponer fits into such requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many years to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed, and (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions prior to 2001; then-current and re-enforcing information was gathered to refine the direction of his nuclear speculation.
+++EndQuote
In other words, what the fictional show Star Trek rejected -- because maybe they were told to with it being too close to the truth -- does not have to dictate the feasibility and truth of nuclear development.
//
x133 Conor Eaton-Smith : How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11?
2017-12-11
Conor Eaton-Smith So... Err what?
How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11?
x134 Maxwell C. Bridges : They dont
2017-12-11
Eric Conley
Eric Conley They dont.
x135 Maxwell C. Bridges : logistics of controlled demolition
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, according to the disinformation from former Russian Agent Dimitri K (who promotes singular deep under ground nukes), NYC went through so many periods of scrape and build-anew, they had rules on granting building permits for very large structures that required end-of-life demolition plans. According to what the Russians acquired, nukes were part of the WTC plan.
Further, if we look into the disinformation of Dr. Wood (albeit not so completely full of disinformation as her detractors decry), she hints that the pulverization of content was a design goal of the demolition. Comparing large chunks of cohesive mass to pulverized mass, the latter do less collateral damage to neighboring structures, but particularly to the concrete "bathtub" that surrounded the WTC complex, kept the Hudson out, and consequently kept such flooding for going through the subway lines and damaging other areas.
FGNW fit into 9/11, because the logistics of controlled demolition using conventional chemical-based explosives would have been huge (three skyscrapers) and could not be completed in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior and up to 9/11.
Of course, if they would have used conventional explosives, they could have made the event appear "natural" or believable. The overkill pulverization and ejection of content from the earliest moments of annihilation was a give away of something else.
//
x136 Maxwell C. Bridges : deranged moron
2017-12-11
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Yep, the deranged moron that is Bridges is getting upset that his "snigger" "work" isn't getting taken seriously.
x137 Maxwell C. Bridges : not an earnest seeker of truth
2017-12-11
Dear Mrs. Elizabeth Tague, I'll not make a habit of addressing you, because you offer NOTHING of value to the discussion. Don't have the smarts to debunk it, all you can do is mock it.
Testament that you are an agent with an agenda and not a sincere seeker of truth on 9/11, you would be taking this task seriously of legitimately debunking 9/11 FGNW. And guess what? As an earnest seeker of 9/11 truth myself, I'd even be assisting you. I'm not married to FGNW, and properly applied science to the evidence can convince me of the errors in my premise; I'd recant and apologize publicly.
But you are not an earnest seeker of truth. You aren't going to legitimately tackle this topic even ignoring you are too lazy and intellectually challenged. Too many nuggets of truth that you can't explain.
Because of your mental deficiencies, even as a paid agent, you are screwing the pooch. The best play for agents has always to STFU. Sure, an opening dismissive comment, but then truly not engaging. When it can't be resisted (because they call it paid-to-post for a reason), the summation of your efforts should not amount to mockery and insults. That exposes you.
At this point in time, please play your best card STFU. Go away. Buh-bye.
//
x138 Laurence Hopkins : isn't your page
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges Look Bridges, this isn't your page, and your not an admin, thank christ. So you will take points that counter your points, such as they are. Since you deal with long debunked arguments, which we have dealt with many, many, many times before, you are not offering anything new, or even interesting. You are merely retching up stale vomit, and that is not appealing.
x139 Maxwell C. Bridges : under a posting made by me
2017-12-11
Look, Mr. Hopkins. Your comment appears under a posting made by me. My posting and the anchoring article are about fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) on 9/11. The posting was made to a FB forum called "9/11 Debates - Debunkers vs Truthers," where one could assume that rational and legitimate discussion is to transpire. As a 9/11 truther, it is my earnest desire that FGNW get some rational and sincere discussion. I would be overjoyed if it were LEGITIMATELY debunked.
Theoretically, "Debunkers vs Truthers" in the title implies evaluation and scoring, if only in the minds of objective and impartial present and latter-day lurker readers. They will know which side had the better argument, the better tactics, the better analysis, and came out ahead and were the most convincing.
You said: "So you will take points that counter your points, such as they are."
Indeed I will. And when those counter points consist entirely of mockery, it will be so credited to your score.
But I do ~NOT~ have to accept comments that do not relate in the least to my points, something that can't even be called a "counter point." I do ~NOT~ have to accept spam (two or more comments in row by the same participant.)
Such distractions dilute your fellow Debunkers' more rational, valient efforts to legitimately take on FGNW.
Further more, more than a couple participants (including you) have alluded to just about every damn 9/11 conspiracy theory having been debunked ALREADY at some point in this group. You make the claim; you defend the claim.
If FGNW were discussed, it is your responsibility as the one making the claim to proved it -- like with a FB link. Nobody has, so it unravels first as playing games: "making claims that can't be substantiated" and "assigning busy work having opponents research the claim." Then it unravels as a lie when nobody posts a link. [And I'm fair enough to accept not only FB links, but elsewhere on the internet.]
When a participant calls an opponent a name (e.g., "liar") without substantiation, the statement is an ad hominem attack, can be pointed out as such, and ultimately reflects poorly on the participant. But when the claim can be substantiation, the statement becomes a validated character assessment of the opponent.
I suspect that FGNW have never been discussed in this FB group. Therefore, these very discussions may become the defining debunking statements on FGNW for all future encounters with truthers having a nuclear bent. You do yourselves AND this forum no favors when you do a shitty job of it and let it become polluted with off-topic tangents or debunking consisting entirely of mockery and empty claims.
I'm giving you solid advice on better tactics that achieve short and long term goals. Pay attention.
Meanwhile, I still request that Mr. Fitzsimmons make his Silverstein comment where it belongs (under Fracois Dulude comment).
//
x140 Laurence Hopkins : You talk derp
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges You talk derp, so it ill matters what you post or where, it all gets dealt with the same.
You are new here. This isn't an echo chamber or a place where you can post derp unchallenged. This is a science-based page. Now, step out of your pissy knickers and stop being a cry baby.
Point me to peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing, such as Science or Nature, and NOT uploads, memes, opinion pieces, blogspots that endorses your derp, and you might have a ghost of a chance here.
MIGHT have.
x141 Maxwell C. Bridges : premise wrong and expose game-playing
2017-12-11
Oh snap, Mr. Hopkins! You wrote in reference to this FB forum: "This is a science-based page."
Please run the statistics over the comments to this posting to determine:
1) How many talked about specifics in the FGND premise.
2) How many simply mocked the FGND primise.
3) How many side-track the discussion into things that are off-topic.
I think the results will prove your premise wrong and expose game-playing.
How many participants are too chicken-shit to dive into any of the 31 sections of my article that anchors this posting? (Don't forget to count yourself, Mr. Hopkins.) It is science-based and has references that are science-base. I even posted a link to one of them.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
Bravo for the attempt at moving goal-posts: "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing, such as Science or Nature..."
Double-fucking snap, Mr. Hopkins! I would think that the Dr. Andre Gsponer and his publications to Cornell University Library fit into that category (see arxiv.org).
I stand "a ghost of a chance here", but I'm not so sure about you. Too fucking lazy to read what anchors this discussion, let alone "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing" that substantiates it.
You could have fooled me when you wrote: "This isn't an echo chamber or a place where you can post derp unchallenged."
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. What I see is you being an echo chamber of others to dismiss this FGNW premise with ~mockery~ not science.
//
x142 Maxwell C. Bridges : victim mentality
2017-12-11
Dear Mr. Secher, I agree that you and other OCTers have a "victim mentality" (because that was the aim of the propaganda), exhibit copious levels of blind patriotism, and got suckered into desiring revenge against "them" (the Muslim boogey-men) even though no valid case was made.
You have several problems with discussing 9/11 here, starting with making statements that don't agree with the evidence.
Tell us, oh wise one in physics, how did the upper 20 stories accordion in on themselves, going SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY from 100% resistance to only 36% resistance (as calculated by David Chandler and others for the acceleration being 64% gravitational acceleration)?
Where did the energy come from? What pile-driver acted on those 20 stories to accomplish this? Whereas a solid mass falling from a given height generates lots of kinetic energy (numbers you calculated), what solid mass fell onto the upper 20 stories?
Pulverization and ejection of content are observed in the earliest moments of the destruction wave passing the level of impact. Pulverization is a huge energy sink greater than the potential energy of the upper 20 stories regardless of whether they are considered a solid cohesive mass or a shredded pancaked accordion. The issue remains that if the roof line is going to hit the level of the street through the path of greatest resistance in times within the error margin for gravitational acceleration (as per NIST) while also ejecting and pulverizing things...
Well, gee, Mr. Secher, surely your physics equations would detect a gross imbalance in energy requirements that can't be explained by the stored potential energy of the 20 stories. I don't see you scratching your head and muttering "energy had to be added." I also don't hear you proclaiming the greatness of Allah or recommending conversion to Islam for Allah's ability to bend his own laws of the universe THREE times on that fateful day.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
//
x143 George Secher : many layers of disconnected tangents
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges, to many layers of disconnected tangents for me to keep up with. Before exotic alternative theories should be brought in, the primary original understanding should be ruled out and it has not been so I'll tell you what; you wanted me to produce the debunking comments herein so I will - ONE. I will write it because it is easier for me to do that then put together enough to paint the full picture since they generally only speak about one aspect each. I'll try to do it tomorrow.
x144 Maxwell C. Bridges : eloquent bullshit
2017-12-11
George Secher You utter such eloquent bullshit. "Oh, it hurts my pwetty widdle bwain to think such things when OCT so consumes my mind."
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon
NOT HERE, but in your own top-level posting, please go right ahead with your faulty premise that the OCT has never been debunked. Then I'll educate you that the government has NEVER made its case; most of what you are defending with the OCT has come about from the media and other debunkers, not from the horse's mouth.
Worse, debunkers are only good for about one round of rebuttal. When the debunkers' sources are analyzed and thoroughly trashed, the debunker cannot acknowledge any validity of the counter-point or the ramifications on their beliefs (particularly when it isn't sincere but agenda-driven.) Rarely do they have anything to counter the counter-points.
Whatever. You've got this entire FB forum to proclaim your beliefs in the righteousness and wonder of the OCT. But it is out of place here.
//
x145 George Secher : wining debates rather than finding truth
2017-12-11
You are only concerned is in wining debates rather than finding truth, and about as insincerely egotistical as they come - you already know that you we teach me a lesson? Are you at all aware of how you come off to others? I'm not sure I should even bother engaging someone as insecure as you are - I don't really need the juvenile uncalled for negativity around me….. and I was all set to converse with you.
x146 Maxwell C. Bridges : expressed purpose of having my FGNW debunked legimately
2017-12-11
Dear Mr. Secher, you wrote: "You are only concerned is in wining debates rather than finding truth..."
Let us count this as a lie, because I came here with the expressed purpose of having my FGNW debunked legimately. I am religiously fanatical about Truth, even if it means losing the debate against someone with beter evidence and analysis.
You continued: "... and (you are) about as insincerely egotistical as they come."
Another way of saying "insincerely egotistical" would be "humble". Why, thank you Mr. Secher for the complement.
Maybe what you meant was "sincerely egotistical." If so, so what? If so, then maybe you are projecting, as you pompously decry the looniness of my premise, and then when it is explained to you, you complain "(too) many layers of disconnected tangents for me to keep up with." It isn't me. It's you.
You ask: "Are you at all aware of how you come off to others?"
If you are Mr. James Bond aka Agent double-oh-seven, and I am your evil nemesis, I hope that I come across with an accent and with demonstrated respectful language, but leaving an aura of much power and danger (in debate); someone not to be trifled with or to play games around.
You wondered: "I'm not sure I should even bother engaging someone as insecure as you are - I don't really need the juvenile uncalled for negativity around me... and I was all set to converse with you."
Projecting your weaknesses on to me, yet again?!!
But listen, if you express such doubts, GO WITH THEM!!! Follow your heart! Don't engage me. Please. If this so far is the best you can do, then "yes, Agent 007, now would be a good time for you to fold your hand and walk away from the table."
I'll be gratious and let you call it a draw to all with whom you want to brag.
But if you stay, let me give you some advice. Up your game.
Write off-line. Save your work elsewhere; don't rely on FB to preserve your words. Take the time to research, contemplate; follow my links. Be objective. Be specific. Substantiate. Write words worthy of preservation; write for posterity, for the latter-day lurker-readers, for being re-purposed. My blog already exposes my tactics and how discourse with me (eventually, one day, when I get around to it, down the road) will be re-used; make your efforts worthy.
If you take it as seriously and sincerely as I do, the efforts might become like the fabled Jefferson-Franklin correspondence of our day on FGNW that future generations will study. I'm God-damn religiously fanatical about Truth, and so it will be!
I would love nothing more than to be able to say: "You convinced me; I was wrong; I apologize (not just here but through the "internets") for having spread misinformation; here is the correction and what I now believe."
P.S. From our exchanges so far and if nothing changes on your end, I regret that I do not look forward to further conversation. I think you'll come off very badly here, and then later on my eternal blog, because you are unprepared and unwilling to do the requisite homework to get on the same page of understanding. It shows, and it'll continue to be a weakness that I'll exploit. I take no pleasure in besting or belittling you (and others) for the lame mockery in your arsenal. "Up your game" is solid advice you and others need to heed.
Jeebus Kryst! Look at the length of this comment! Let that be a sign!
//
x147 Adam Fitzsimmons : i know what to do with the likes of you
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges
I think i know what to do with the likes of you, and it will help with my clarity.
x148 Laurence Hopkins : dregs of the dead twoof movement
2017-12-11
The dregs of the dead twoof movement clutch at the final death throes, with increasingly elaborate (and absurd) hypotheses like fusion bombs, mini nukes, death rays from space...
And yet they demand to be taken seriously. Ermm.....NO.
x149 Maxwell C. Bridges : Talley-hoe and all that
2017-12-11
Laurence Hopkins Bravo! Quite right, old chat. Talley-hoe and all that. Righty then. You really hit the kangaroo on the bonnet with that one!
What was the subject? If you know, please spell it correctly.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/
//
x150 Adam Fitzsimmons : Nothing says evidence than a blog
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges
Nothing says evidence than a blog.
x151 Laurence Hopkins : having a stroke?
2017-12-11
Maxwell Bridges Sorry, but are you having a stroke? Or attempting wit? Because i would prefer it to be the former.
And a blogspot! How twee! I'd almost forgotten what they looked like! Which is why i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead! Nothing for you there: move along please and mind the gaps.
x152 Maxwell C. Bridges : I stand "a ghost of a chance here"
2017-12-11
Good for you, Mr. Hopkins in your claim of: "i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead!"
That being the case, how about Cornell Library (arxiv.org), its physics section, and this article in particular titled: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
I just have to gloat by repeating the following.
====
Bravo for the attempt at moving goal-posts: "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing, such as Science or Nature..."
Double-fucking snap, Mr. Hopkins! I would think that the Dr. Andre Gsponer and his publications to Cornell University Library fit into that category (see arxiv.org).
I stand "a ghost of a chance here", but I'm not so sure about you. Too fucking lazy to read what anchors this discussion, let alone "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing" that substantiates it.
You could have fooled me when you wrote: "This isn't an echo chamber or a place where you can post derp unchallenged."
//
x153 Conor Eaton-Smith : a brief prima facie
2017-12-11
So Maxwell Bridges that's an awful lot of words to not be able to present even a brief prima facie as to nuclear weapons and 9/11.
x154 Sam Haschets : absolute unverified bullshit and completely impossible
2017-12-11
Group Moderator
Maxwell Bridges "According to what the Russians acquired, nukes were part of the WTC plan."
This is absolute unverified bullshit and completely impossible
x155 Sam Haschets : dogs never took a holiday
2017-12-11
'in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior and up to 9/11"
The dogs never took a holiday, they were there the whole time, one even died in the collapse
Maxwell Bridges
x156 Bill Paisley : not even worth any serious effort to debunk it is so outlandish
2017-12-11
You don't really have to go far to discount this out of hand. Its not even worth any serious effort to debunk it is so outlandish - and indeed it hasn't taken any serious effort to debunk.
Credentials and CVs mean nothing when examined in the context of common sense and science. There are some very "credentialed" people with seemingly impressive CVs who are members of the Flat Earth Society. Judy Woods, Jim Fetzer, John Lear, et al are just a few examples that have "impressive" credentials and CVs but can be mocked and ridiculed for the positions they take in this matter - DEW and No-Planer and Aliens on a base on the dark side of the moon. WTC nukes are in that same category.
There are 9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA). Not a single one of them have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
As of Feb 2016 there are 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and not one, not even those that have had serious disagreements with the United States over the years, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
The Nuclear Energy Agency has 31 member states and not a single one, through that venue, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
As a US naval flight officer I was in and around naval aviation much of my life. While I never was involved with "special weapons" (as nukes were called) since I was a fighter radar intercept officer, I have many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry and they agree - "nukes at the WTC", in any way, shape or form, is as absurd a claim as has ever been made by anyone, right up there with Flat Earth, We never Went to the Moon or No-Planes.
Sworn enemies of the US such as Iran and North Korea, both with robust and advanced nuclear programs, have not even accused the "Great Satan" of this "nukes at the WTC" claim. You'd think at least they would trumpet this loud and long, sticking it to the US high and hard, if there were any truth or veracity to it.
Of course, as with most Trutrher claims, the entire world must be "in on it", a vast conspiracy of silence where all the nations of the world band together to keep this a secret. Balderdash is the most polite term I can come up with for this. Pure and utter balderdash.
So you can keep on worshiping your "9/11 hero" as much as you like, touting his "credentials" and his CV to your heart's content. The sentient and critical thinking members of this spinning planet will continue to mock you and your "9/11 hero" and his ilk and we'll continue on in life, doing the things that we need to do to make this a better place for our friends, family, loved ones and everyone else on this rock.
x157 Maxwell C. Bridges : five-fold fail
Dear Mr. Paisley, you wrote: "9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA), 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and 31 member states. Not a single one of them have come out in support of this 'nukes at the WTC' claim."
Good try, Mr. Paisley, but five-fold fail.
1) FGNW, not "nukes". Language is important particularly when the deep embedded connotations in the public's perception of a word ("nukes") can purposely mislead understanding.
2) Based on the media hype into what nukes are (e.g., very big, lots of radioactivity), even I don't support "nukes at the WTC" named as such. The premise is "FGNW at the WTC."
3) Owing to the largely successful Q-group disinformation campaigns to squash even the slightest whiff of "nuclear anything" involving among other personages a BYU professor of nuclear physics, I seriously doubt that "FGNW at the WTC" was ever presented to them and they were given an opportunity to voice their support of it. [Thanks for the idea.]
4) You try to discredit and disparage the reputation of man with your unwarranted CV comments.
5) You avoided analyzing the paper at the PDF link called "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
Seeing how you were bragging about being a US naval flight officer with "many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry", let's make your supposition about their no-nukes beliefs a legitimate fact.
Please send them all a friendly email:
"Hey buddies. Got this wanker 9/11 Twoofer who thinks special nukes were used on the WTC. His premise is documented here [please provide link to my blog article anchoring this discussion] and has substantiation from the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer [please provide link to the PDF]. Could you please help me debunk (or validate) his bat-shit crazy premise? Does the science make sense? Does it explain better what was observed on 9/11? Thanks"
//
x158 Maxwell C. Bridges : a blogspot! How twee!
2017-12-11
Learning my lessons, like not to engage two 9/11 FB groups at one time, particularly one title "9/11 Debate - Debunkers vs Truthers."
In order to turn off unproductive, repetitive carousels, a funny exchange there went as follows.
MCB: [Posted a link to my blog article about FGNW.]
Debunker: "And a blogspot! How twee! I'd almost forgotten what they looked like! Which is why i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead!"
MCB: "One of the pieces of substantiating evidence for my blog article comes from Dr. Andre Gsponer who wrote 'Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects'." [Posted the link. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf ]
Debunker: "Point me to peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing."
MCB: "arVix.org is Cornell University Library, their physics section."
Crickets.
//
x159 Conor Eaton-Smith : explain why you think nuclear weapons are required
2017-12-11
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Yawn.
Could you explain why you think nuclear weapons are required please.
I know it's quite a basic question, but it is fundamental. Start at the very beginning "I think that nuclear weapons are required because fire can't cause buildings to collapse" and start from there.
You'll need to demonstrate how the buildings required anything other than fire and associated damage to cause the collapses.
I think you've put the cart before the horse myself
x160 Maxwell C. Bridges : focus on the life work of Dr. Andre Gsponer
2017-12-11
Dear Mr. Eaton-Smith, your question: "Could you explain why you think nuclear weapons are required please."
Your question is mal-framed, asks for speculation, is a detour, and could potentially lead to a FGNW strawman for you to knock down. I would prefer that you focus on the life work of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
For the curious, here's why I think FGNW were required.
- All other nukes would be too big and obvious.
- There wasn't time for a full-scale planting of conventional explosives. Bomb-sniffing dogs only were on holiday for a few days prior to 9/11.
- The scope of the operation (WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, WTC-7). Operation goals include stealing gold from WTC-4 vaults and destroying SEC records.
- Many generals and majors had itchy trigger-fingers and were just LITERALLY dying to try out some of the wonders of 60+ years of nuclear science and stashed away in the corners of the US arsenals.
- Overkill to pulverization in the towers at the earliest phases of annihilation was required, because pulverized mass falling a great distance would cause less damage to other buildings and the bathtub holding back the Hudson from flooding the WTC and all neighborhood properties connected by subway tunnels, than large chunks of cohesive building mass falling a great distance.
- They wanted to prove the might, ethics, and resolve of the US to other nations. For example, plus or minus, these were relatively clean nukes compared to the normal hysteria foisted upon nukes. The US was willing to nuke to itself to achieve its goals as outlined by the PNAC in 1999; the US would not and did not hesitate in deploying nukes against others (DU-munitions in Iraq). The US would nuke itself and then use the power over its media to tell the public and the world that it was "jet impact and fires from jet fuel and office furnishings" (except on WTC-7).
- FGNW were ripe; it was time. They are tactical, low-yield, low-radiation, and can target their energy. They could be used in tandem. WHY NOT?!!!
===
You wrote: "You'll need to demonstrate how the buildings required anything other than fire and associated damage to cause the collapses."
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the jet impacts and fires from jet fuel & office furnishings could INITIATE the collapse. The weasels in NIST sort of did just that; a sleight of hand distraction; one probable hypothesis that might be believable.
The problem is: NIST stops there. Once the collapse INITIATES, they don't explain the symmetry, the suddenness, the pulverization & content ejections, and the near-free-fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance from the earliest phases after initiation. They don't address under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. The don't address the torching of vehicles on West Broadway and the car park. They don't explain the sagging steal beams, the horseshoes, and the steel doobies. They don't address WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, except to imply that pulverized content from one of the towers.
Actually, you're the one who needs "to demonstrate how the buildings required only fire and associated damage to cause the collapses" AND all of the observed anomalies AFTER collapse initiation that defy physics. I've been on that carousel, don't want to ride it again, but am so looking forward to your lame efforts. Chop, chop.
BUT DON'T DO IT HERE. Make your own posting.
To quote you again: "I think you've put the cart before the horse myself" when you don't have explanations for the anomalies.
//
x161 Eric Conley : The MINIMUM requirement
2017-12-11
Conor Eaton-Smith >> The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred.
He has not done that nor has he shown any comprehension of the actual collapse mechanisms.
The relevant base facts - for the Twin Towers - are:
The collapse mechanism involved at least three distinct stages:
1) An "initiation stage" in which the main process was some columns initially cut by aircraft impact which caused damage but did NOT cause significant downwards movement of the "Top Block". That was followed after a period of about one hour until the start of a sequenced cascading failure of columns failing in axial overload which did result in tilting then falling of the TOP Block(s).
--simple logic makes it clear that -- IF there was any CD assistance by nuclear or conventional explosives or by incendiary devices it HAD to be in this stage whether or not it was also in later stage(s); AND
--the physics is also definitive - impact damage plus heat weakening causing accumulating damage was sufficient to cause "Top Block" to fall. "CD" assistance was not needed and would have been redundant;
3) A "progression stage" in which falling debris missed the columns - landed on floor joists and core area floor beams with massive overloads causing rapid progression to global collapse. "CD" assistance again redundant in the face of overloads in the range of 30-50 times what could be resisted; AND
2) (Second in time) the "transition processes from the "initiation" stage which set up the "debris missing the columns" key feature of the "progression stage".
That is what happend - with or without "CD" whether by nuclear or any other device(s).
There is ZERO proof that nuclear could be used to cause the WTC Twin Towers colapses....and a major problem in that NO CD help was needed. The "natural processes" were sufficient;
There is anothr fatal argument - Maxwell Bridges needs to show how the nuclear device(s) achieved a slow process of progressive damage which was self sustaining once started -- which means he has to prove that nuclear was needed to start the first step whilst still leaving the building standing for many minutes of apparent deterioration. Does he propose that dozens of micro nuclear devices were used? And remember the actual "cascading failure" process was self sustaining - didn't need "help" from redundant explosives.
Hence his claims are ridiculous -- they simply cannot fit into the scenario of the actual collapse mechanisms.
There is ZERO proof that nuclear could be used to cause the WTC Twin Towers collapses....and a major problem in that NO CD help was needed.
x162 Maxwell C. Bridges : So easily caught in a lie
2017-12-11
+++ 2017-12-12
The tag-team of Mr. Eric Conley and Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith in one of the unproductive detours suggested: "The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred."
That requirement will be met later in this comment. Stay tuned.
Mr. Conley continued: "He has not done that nor has he shown any comprehension of the actual collapse mechanisms."
So easily you are caught in a lie easily exposed (a) by the article that anchors this whole discussion thread and (b) by the repeated links to the Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons paper by Dr. Andre Gsponer, like in the fourth top-level comment. I provide the link yet again for thoroughness. Don't want anyone to get caught in any more lies that they didn't see it. It's kinda important.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
The above handily counters Mr. Conley's later boasts: "There is ZERO proof that nuclear could be used to cause the WTC Twin Towers collapses."
Mr. Conley then goes on to explain a fiction about about three stage annihilation of the towers. Hardly worth my time, and we need to ask ourselves why Mr. Conley hasn't converted to Islam for the many Allah-law-breaking wonders and coincidences Allah enabled for his disciples on 9/11. Woo-hoo!
At any rate, see my top-level posting down below for the desired MINIMUM requirement.
//
x163 Maxwell C. Bridges : [Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers
2017-12-11
[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of material. Can be tweaked in the discussions.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. Therefore I speculate that FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months. Such may have saved the firemen. May have been the cause of WTC-7 not coming down as planned with the other structures.]
When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. When these neutrons hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the layer vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave through the rest of the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, and what became known as "the meteor."]
The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them. The debris pile and area had examples of another anomaly that I call "steel doobies," which are the three beams of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or joint, or doobie) and held together by their three spandrels. In other words, the spandrels were heated sufficiently to become pliable such that the destructive shock-wave forces could wrap the beams together. One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground. [The OCT doesn't explain this anomaly.]
When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories, he calculated that the roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton. This meant, the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
WTC-1 upper 20 stories wasn't completely symmetric and started toppling over and out of the path of maximum resistance. Then suddenly, its angular momentum was halted and it accordioned in on itself. It was no longer a cohesive whole toppling to the side.
Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. Some content may have passed multiple times into the path of lower FGNWs, thereby resulting in smaller and smaller pieces.
This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself. You can see material formerly affixed to the spire suddenly turn to dust and linger in the air as the steel of the spire disappears downward.
The reason the firemen in the stairwell survived has to do with aiming or with malfunction of the device that would have decimated their corner.
Games have been played with the audio of many videos, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such CD cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun, but at a countable cadence, once every 1/2 second to second, which would also underscore the idea of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that were they used (and certainly to achieve pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors. Furthermore, when conventional chemical devices are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- violent destroys other content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from chemical explosives. The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud. Content ablating and being destroyed by shockwaves created deep within the content would have a different sound.
Placement of FGNW in other buildings were different. WTC-6 crater shows really well how conical shaped FGNW spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
Aircraft was restricted from flying over the WTC, and directly over the towers. All cameras and helicopters were far away, owing to the danger from these devices being aimed upwards.
Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. It explains the experiences of an EMT who was running from WTC-6 (where the Feds had some sort of command center in the lobby) and was hit by the door of a parked car that popped out of its frame and off of its hinges to forcefully smack her into the wall.
Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are close, but in a disinformation bent don't connect dots and purposely avoid valid nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
//
x164 Conor Eaton-Smith : address the fundamental premises of your hypothesis
2017-12-13
Manage
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith "The problem is: NIST stops there".
So you must start there. It's all very telling that you have to revert to weasel terms yourself, like
"Near free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance".
How fast actually was it Maxwell Bridges and why could that not have occured naturally and with one main force acting, in one direction how should the building have collapsed?
Maxwell you need to start at the beginning and address the fundamental premises of your hypothesis.
Otherwise it's simply crap in = crap out.
Remove
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and Maxwell Bridges that's another unsupported assertion from yourself.
That I don't have any explanation for what you consider anomalies - what aren't anomalies at all.
$This is your thread" to make a prima facie case that nuclear weapons were used. So far you've not been able to even show that the buildings didn't collapse by themselves...
x165 Maxwell C. Bridges : where you need to start is in reading what I write
Dear Mr. Eaton-Smith, The basis for your faulty beliefs are NIST reports that STOP before anomalies in the WTC annihilation became too glaring.
You write: "So you must start there."
I did start there, and you didn't read it. Therefore, where you need to start is in reading what I write.
You continue: "It's all very telling that you have to revert to weasel terms yourself, like 'Near free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance'. How fast actually was it Maxwell Bridges"?
I take back my previous statement. You need to start by reading the NIST report who claims annihilation times at about 11 and 13 seconds, which is within the margin of error of free-fall for an object dropped from either roof.
You continue: "... and why could that not have occured naturally and with one main force acting, in one direction how should the building have collapsed?"
Damn, Mr. Eaton-Smith. You need a refresher on physics 101. Because I think you're assigning busy work to keep me distracted and won't review it, I'll be brief. The laws of conservation of energy. If a mass falls without resistance, the maximum acceleration it can achieve is gravitational acceleration. No energy is available to pulverize or eject content from the path of maximum resistance, which was over-designed to support mass above. Yet NIST documents the towers' destruction times through the path of maximum resistance close to free-fall times, and also pulverization and ejection of content.
Energy had to be added.
You wrote: "$This is your thread" to make a prima facie case that nuclear weapons were used."
I've been doing that. You have been too obstinate to approach with objectivity and an open mind. You haven't even read what I posted or commented.
You're just a big circus distraction.
//
x166 Conor Eaton-Smith : quote the NIST collapse times please
2017-12-13
Manage
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith You have not started there Maxwell :). You've skipped go and gone straight to FGNW :).
"Within the margin of error of free-fall"... What does that even mean? Oh an an object dropped from either roof? Well apart from 'your' margin of error apparently being 20% despite the hours being the same height - the collapses didn't start from the roof!
Oh and quote the NIST collapse times please. I think you've got them wrong.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and "Energy had to be added" - show this Maxwell! It's all very good saying it, but since you brought up physics... You'll know that you'll need to show your working :).
Over designed for the mass above? Sure. What is the difference in force that a 1 kg static load presents and the impact load of the same mass dropped from 4 metres. Assume that it takes less than 0.1mm to come to a complete stop.
x167 Maxwell C. Bridges : pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims
2017-12-13
Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, Don't be pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims. You make the lame claim, you defend it.
And when you show the physics calculations for the impact load of the 1 kg mass A dropping from 4 metres onto mass B, your work must prove that weaker mass A can pulverize stronger mass B ~and~ that the acceleration of combined mass A+B after impact remains at gravitational acceleration (no slowing after impact) when they travel the next 4 meters to mass C.
I'm feeling fair. Although strength of mass C > mass B > mass A, you can assume A=B=C. Also, although mass A (the upper 20 stories) was pulverized and wasn't a cohesive whole anymore before it approached mass B, I'll let you assume a solid mass A.
Remember that according to your premise, energy cannot be added and the combined masses cannot slow from gravitational acceleration after impact.
//
x168 Conor Eaton-Smith : over designed for the mass above
2017-12-13
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith So Maxwell Bridges, you are, after claiming that the structure was "over designed for the mass above" - 'your claim' (a "lame" one at that lol) you are unwilling to demonstrate this.
Firstly you can show the order/s of magnitude difference in force exerted by an mass when static, and in motion and coming to a complete stop in minimal distance.
And then you can show us how the structure was over designed for this.
It is very telling that you refer to "mass" in both stronger and weaker mass - when structural and civil engineers refer to force.
:)
Got to start with the fundamentals Maxwell Bridges...
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Crickets
x169 Eric Conley : way out of your depth in simple logic
2017-12-13
Eric Conley
Eric Conley I'm genuinely sorry that you are way out of your depth in simple logic.
You made this statement as a lead in to a "Gish Gallop" of irrelevancies:
"Maxwell Bridges [Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy ....."
READ this S-L-O-W-L-Y.
"WE" dont need convincing of the capabilities of any technology including FGNW BECAUSE they are irrelevant. Do you comprehend "irrelevant"?
..This is the status of (non) debate in these threads where you have posted your ridiculous claims which you do not support with legitimate argument.
You claim that FGNW was somehow used at WTC on 9/11. It is your burden of proof which you are evading by standard truther debating tricks.
Time to "put up or shut up"
There are two fundamental issues of true fact that you need to demonstrate or rebut BEFORE your claim is worthy of consideration. They are:
1) YOU need to demonstrate:
(a) that assistance of FGNW was needed; AND
(b) How it was used.
2) YOU need to falsify (AKA "rebut") the simple fact of physics a\that that there was no need for any form of CD assistance for the Twin Towers collapses. << So you have to show that assertion false BEFORE your claim warrants consideration.
I doubt that you are up to the challenge. Prove me wrong. :)
x170 Maxwell C. Bridges : can't dismiss as "irrelevant" without proving it such
2017-12-13
Good one, Mr. Eric Conley. I did what you requested, and you didn't even read it. That makes your original request "busy work" and you a game player.
You can't dismiss something as "irrelevant" without proving it such. That would require diving into and reading it.
And if you're going to stick with Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith about no energy being added, yet the towers practically free-fell in the pulverization... Then, ya. We're done here. Buh-bye.
//
x171 Conor Eaton-Smith : Jumping straight to the largest vapourware
2017-12-13
Manage
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Bye-bye Maxwell Bridges. Enjoy getting nowhere.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith It always interesting when somebody bypasses the fundamental issue that the collapses after the plane crashes either happened or did not happen by themselves.
Jumping straight to the largest vapourware appears to be a case of avoiding the hardest, but most important of them all.
If they could show the latter, then it matters relatively little what mechanism is used.
x172 Laurence Hopkins : prove they were used on 9/11
2017-12-13
Laurence Hopkins
Laurence Hopkins Maxwell Bridges So what? We all know nuclear weapons exist. Your job is to prove they were used on 9/11. Jesus....
First off, you have to explain the lack of a EMP , that inevitably byproduct of a nuclear blast, that would knock out electronic equipment all over NYC. Then explain the absence of fission byproducts such as Strontium 90.....
Laurence Hopkins
Laurence Hopkins Oh, Bridges, if you think this an echo chamber, feel free to fuck off to a twoofer one.
x173 Maxwell C. Bridges : My "job" was finished before I ever graced this establishment
Dear Mr. Hopkins, you wrote: "if you think this an echo chamber, feel free to fuck off to a twoofer one."
Most excellent advice! Your loss. I mean, every good story -- from novels, to movies, to stage, to gossip columns -- needs a bit of conflict to keep the audience interested. It can't all be "yes-man" backslapping, "I agree, bruh."
I'm the best "twoofer" you've had, and snowflake that I am, you bully me and cause me to run away. *Whine* *Sniff* *Sob*.
Before telling me to take a hike, Mr. Hopkins wrote: "So what? We all know nuclear weapons exist."
The "so what" is that the paper talks about fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) that this echo chamber believes don't even exist. Thank you for agreeing with that they exist!
Mr. Hopkins continues: "Your job is to prove they were used on 9/11."
Here's where I prove my boasting that I'm the best "twoofer" you've had. My "job" was finished before I ever graced this establishment. Due to me posting links to my article -- one in this very branch discussion --, it sheds light on why I'm taking your advice "to fuck off."
I desire rational, reasoned, intelligent discussion that would take my FGNW legitimately out of contention. You are obviously incapable of meeting my expectations if you don't RTFM. Insincere.
Mr. Hopkins continues: "First off, you have to explain the lack of a EMP , that inevitably byproduct of a nuclear blast, that would knock out electronic equipment all over NYC."
Ho-hum. Got you covered in advance in my article. Section 21 "EMP and Electromagnetic Energy".
Mr. Hopkins continues: "Then explain the absence of fission byproducts such as Strontium 90....."
Ho-hum. Got you covered in advance in my article. Section 11. "Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al"
The ball has been in your court, but you have fumbled spectacularly.
If and when you ever get off your high-horse agenda and want to demonstrate objectivity and sincerity in your search for truth, you know how to reach me.
I'll not be participating in "Debunkers vs Truthers" anymore. This is in conformity with Mr. Hopkins excellent advice to "fuck off to a twoofer one" (although it remains to be seen if "Fair and Civil" is twoofer). Here's where I'm still participating:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1449086582078917/permalink/1943547549299482/
P.S. It has a recent posting that begins: "[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement."
//
x174 Laurence Hopkins : tl;dr. It was derp anyway
2017-12-13
Laurence Hopkins
Laurence Hopkins tl;dr. It was derp anyway.
x175 Maxwell C. Bridges : nothing valuable to contribute
2017-12-13
Dear Mr. Laurence Hopkins, such a witty comeback, old chap! Your logic and articulation were so overwhelmingly convincing, I'm surprised that I was ever able to live without that knowledge.
It totally sums up your FB existence to a T: "tl;dr. It was derp anyway."
Now go away. You prove that you have nothing valuable to contribute, and don't have the intellectual capacity to address FGNW anyway.
//
x176 Daniel M. Plesse : experts omitting Key structural elements
2017-12-13
Daniel M. Plesse
Daniel M. Plesse Maxwell Bridges what is your feelings on experts omitting Key structural elements on 9/11 ?
I have only one example "9/11 Shameless Architect Omits The Existence Of Twin Tower Core"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2W6wcVjeaM
Are these experts part of the 9/11 crimes or just so happen to know what to omit to sell the Jet Fuel Theory? You have the floor.
Early Architecture Fraud: The Core Structures…
x177 Laurence Hopkins : Once more: unread
2017-12-13
Laurence Hopkins
Laurence Hopkins Maxwell Bridges Once more: unread. And i feel my witty comebacks are wasted on the likes of you. You go to a twoof echo chamber where they might revere you as a god. Here, you're just another dilettante regurgitating long debunked tripe.
You're not happy, and we don't want unhappiness here. Sooner the better, really; (whispers) "It's all for the best"....
x178 Maxwell C. Bridges : Omitting things is easy and common
2017-12-13
Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, my "feelings on experts omitting key structural elements on 9/11" is that it is par for the course.
"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon.
Omitting things is easy and common in the 9/11 OCT realm.
//
x179 Maxwell C. Bridges : no business replying
2017-12-13
Dear Mr. Laurence Hopkins, if you aren't going to read the comments of others, then you have no business replying to them, much less bragging about not reading the comment that you are commenting on. The much stronger presence would have been exuded by simply STFU. //
x180 Laurence Hopkins : two clowns to spam with their clickbait
2017-12-13
Laurence Hopkins Is admin going to allow these two clowns to spam with their clickbait?
x181 Adam Fitzsimmons : Is it Pleese?
2017-12-13
Adam Fitzsimmons
Adam Fitzsimmons Is it Pleese? I have him blocked.
x182 Andy Campbell : mutual masturbation
2017-12-13
Andy Campbell
Andy Campbell It’s mutual masturbation.
x183 Laurence Hopkins : along with new tinfoiler Maxwell Bridges, a most unwelcome presence
2017-12-13
Laurence Hopkins
Laurence Hopkins Adam Fitzsimmons It is, along with new tinfoiler Maxwell Bridges, a most unwelcome presence. A proper dick, too.
x184 Adam Fitzsimmons : I knew it
2017-12-13
Adam Fitzsimmons
Adam Fitzsimmons Laurence Hopkins
I knew it. Bridges i cannot block for i am a moderater in a forum he is in.
x185 Laurence Hopkins : the Paganini of piffle
2017-12-13
Laurence Hopkins
Laurence Hopkins Adam Fitzsimmons Then you are familiar with his verbose waffle. He is the Paganini of piffle.
x186 Elizabeth Tague : pure pish!
2017-12-13
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague He does speak, as we say here in Scotland ... pure pish!
x187 Adam Fitzsimmons : has a YouTube channel
2017-12-13
Adam Fitzsimmons
Adam Fitzsimmons Laurence Hopkins
He has a YouTube channel, full of the usual conspiratorial nonsense.
x188 Laurence Hopkins : refuse to go those derpfests
2017-12-13
Laurence Hopkins
Laurence Hopkins Adam Fitzsimmons I refuse to go those derpfests. You can feel your neurons dying en masse as you scan the bollocks there.
x189 Maxwell C. Bridges : a true to life, honest to goodness, real-life CONSPIRACY
2017-12-13
By golly, I do believe I've discovered a true to life, honest to goodness, real-life CONSPIRACY, right under our noses here at "Debunkers vs Truther." Got a bunch of whiney losers who can't read, research, reason, or debate worth a damn CONSPIRING to ban my humble presense in this hallowed establishment.
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Hopkins. Proving yourself a LIAR with your "spam with their clickbait" comment. My blog has no advertisement. It doesn't dole out information in a fix sequence of small chunks requiring clicks on the "next" button. And in all cases, the links substantiated my argument. Clearly from the lack of links you've posted here, substantiated debate is frowned upon as "spam."
Loved your assessment of me, Mr. Hopkins: "a most unwelcome presence." Me? Unwelcome? Without me, you've got no debate, nothing to bite your rabid fangs into. You should show me more respect. Better "a proper dick" than the fake one you strap on to participate here.
Mr. Adam Fitzsimmons, please point me to my alleged YouTube channel so I can see what I'm accused of. If one exists that you can find, I can assure you it is entirely by accident. (Failure to cough up the link adds another data point to your LIAR trend line.) In the hopes that you get lucky and it is "full of the usual conspiratorial nonsense," sounds like something worthwhile to review.
The only redeeming part of having been (past tense) a participant here was seeing how big the Q-group roster was of paid-to-post government shills. Later, when I get around to re-purposing our exchange from here, it'll be quite obvious that the government is still funding the 9/11 cover-up. Requisite for such a job is a gross ignornance of physics, some skills in mockery, and a soldier's ability to tote an agenda without thinking.
//
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ten-essential-elements-of-a-covert-op/
Ten essential elements of a covert op
by Jon Rappoport
December 12, 2017
x190 Maxwell C. Bridges : Not "dustification"; "ablate."
Not "dustification"; "ablate."
Ablating happens when the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material vaporizes (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on the rest of the material, launching a shock-wave into it that tears it apart.
How can the surface get heated to such levels? The easy way is to use Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) that target highly energetic neutrons. These deliver tons of energy deep into materials.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
My only issues with Mr. Ganduu is that he is stuck in a rut with Dr. Wood. She never claimed that her work was the end-station and certainly doesn't connect dots in the lingering innuendo of her book.
Worst of all, she did a FUCKED UP CRAPPY JOB of research nuclear devices, as did her co-hort Dr. Steven Jones: on purpose. If it were otherwise, they both would have found tons of PUBLIC information from many sources about FGNW, but particularly Dr. Andre Gsponer (see the link above.)
FGNW are technically DEW devices, so Dr. Wood is more correct than nano-thermite which can explain neither pulverization nor under-rubble hot-spots.
Mr. Ganduu, if he is genuine and not a shill to park understanding in dead-end alleys, needs to prove his objectivity, stand on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work, and go to the next level. Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices. Follow the link.
//
The above was written in response to a "busy work" charge of OCT agents (Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith and Mr. Eric Conley), who thought they they'd be done with me by say: "The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred."
Like too many of their OCT agent cohorts, their reaction was either "tl;dnr" or mockery.
//
x191 Maxwell C. Bridges : anti-propaganda law
2017-12-14
"For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences."
And this is why so many OCT shills (like Mrs. Tague) are off-shore with respect to the USA.
Seems to me, the "RAF" stands for the "Royal Air Force", a connection that Mrs. Tague admits.
Paid-to-post. She doesn't add value, and being too clueless to talk specifics, all she can do is throw insults.
//
x192 Dan Plesse : scientists determined
2017-12-14
FYI
Plesse
https://911truthout.blogspot.com/2017/03/scientists-determined-that-at-heat.html
http://toxinews.blogspot.com/2013/11/25-rules-of-disinformation-and-8-traits.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
x193 Dan Plesse : Sar-El
2017-12-15
From Plesse
https://www.sar-el.org/
Sar-El
The National Project for Volunteers for Israel
Laurent Hopkins Ozymandias
2017-12-14
Organized and Professional Disinformation Operations
x194 Elizabeth Tague : Ms. Bridges is somewhat fixated on this crap
2017-12-15
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Wrong, for I do know what he is saying, heard it all years ago, for Ms. Bridges is somewhat fixated on this crap and it IS boring for it IS utter crap ... old boring crap ... simple fact.
x195 Maxwell C. Bridges : the persona is not real
2017-12-15
To the online persona of Elizabeth Tague -- probably played in real life by a man given the choice of language and style -- has an agenda to defend that dictates squashing the notion of nuclear 9/11 by any means possible. Because she isn't real and has a script to follow, she'll never admit to being wrong, can't objectively review the material, and finds it easier for the paid-to-post money to combat a researched and reasoned debate position with shoot-from-the-hip mockery and bad behavior.
Oh, and lying is acceptable to this entity because the persona is not real.
No, Ms. Elizabeth Tague, does NOT know what I am saying. A few years ago with a pre-FGNW premise that was similar, she performed the acts of mockery, of middle-school insults, and of brush-off without objective consideration of the details.
Worse, last time she demonstrated quite clearly a lack of morals and ethics when her other disinformationalist tactics weren't having any effect. But because she does it to help augment her retirement money, she does it with everyone and doesn't remember details.
I do, because I don't trust FB to preserve my words.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/02/neutron-nuclear-dew-at-facebook-911.html
//
2017-12-15
x196 Ado Osborn : Nuclear weapons? Seriously??
2017-12-15
Ado Osborn
Ado Osborn Nuclear weapons? Seriously?? I didn't know NY was an irradiated zone for the next 300 years.... Seeing as I was there in 2014 it does explain why bits of me are falling off..
x197 Maxwell C. Bridges : yes, fourth generation nuclear weapons! Really! Seriously!
2017-12-15
Dear Mr. Ado Osborn, yes, fourth generation nuclear weapons! Really! Seriously! You posted a comment under the thread started by me with " [Bat-shit crazy speculation]" and then linked to an article about me and then to a scientific research paper the supports the premise.
You did not read anything I wrote, because radiation was discussed. You spread gross mis-information with your comment of "an irradiated zone for the next 300 years."
After you read what substantiates the premise, you might be inclined to delete your ignorant comment above.
Next time, let's remove from your discussion tactics that habits of not reading and following links. You can't give a book report on a book you haven't read, neither can you debunk / debate an opponent whose actual, truthful position you don't know, unless you are spreading disinformation purposely. [You wouldn't be the first to piss on nuclear 9/11 for disinformation purposes.]
Geesh.
//
x198 Ado Osborn : Not sure I can remove enough IQ points
2017-12-15
Ado Osborn
Ado Osborn Not sure I can remove enough IQ points from my head to trawl though pages and pages of unsubstantiated rubbish with little or no basis in actual fact. Nuclear without radiation.. Righto.
Ado Osborn
Ado Osborn And for the record, section 1 of your link above that deals with "FGND" has, as usual, a lot of words but says very little.
So explain, in your own words (if you can), how it's possible to have any form of nuclear reaction powerful enough to cause your fable (not fabel BTW) without any kind of residual fallout?
x199 Maxwell C. Bridges : can't call it "unsubstantiated rubbish" if you admit that you haven't read it
2017-12-15
Fuck it, Mr. Ado Osborn. It you want to have the glory of legitimately debunking a nuclear 9/11, you have to put some effort into it. Dismissive comments from the bleachers don't cut it.
You can't call it "unsubstantiated rubbish" if you admit that you haven't read it. Ironically, then, the only "unsubstantiated" words would be your opinion. Every section has reference links.
As to your second comment because you are too lazy to see the case be built (and that has to take on and debunk core 9/11 concensus opinions as well), go to the summary and then to section 14.
Clearly, you are assigning busy work that you will never read with your statement "So explain, in your own words (if you can), how it's possible to have any form of nuclear reaction powerful enough to cause your fable (not fabel BTW) without any kind of residual fallout?" Why? Because my comment with "[Bat-shit crazy speculation]" was posted as a top-level comment yesterday, and I told you to read it again today.
FGNW are fission-triggered fusion devices most closely resembling a neutron bomb that can have its highly energetic neutrons released and targeted (upwards). Neutron radiation is non-lingering. And because the neutrons were released instead of contained within the core to create massive chain reactions, (a) the blast wave is reduced to tactical levels and (b) the bad alpha, beta, gamma radiation isn't built up in the chain reactions so doesn't linger 24-48 hours.
"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon
In your case, you make a huge ass assumptions: "without any kind of residual fallout."
PROVE THAT ASSERTION. Show me the reports that document prompt, systematic, and thorough measurement for radiation. (a) If this happened, (b) the data didn't make it into any reports that half-assed addressed radiation. Earliest time point for a measurement was 2 days after 9/11. Only two sample points were used, and they were in shaded protected areas.
AND then there was tritium, tritium, tritium, which just so happens to be a building-block of all FGNW. Such a song-and-dance dog-and-pony show its report was that was scope-limited from the onset to not even consider nuclear devices. "Let's see if we can make a plausible case for airplane exit signs, weapons' sights, and time pieces for our most haphazard and delayed measurements for tritium."
To recap, in your efforts to prove your contention of no radiation, you'll find reports that were juked but that did show some radiation -- sections of my document.
//
x200 Ado Osborn : utterly pointless
2017-12-15
Ado Osborn
Ado Osborn That's a lot of unnecessary words, most of that was utterly pointless, presumably to justify your "work"
Paragraph 5 would have sufficed.
The rest is just smoke, mirrors, insults & bad language
Have a day off mate, less is often more..
x201 Maxwell C. Bridges : have enjoyment this weekend
2017-12-15
Dear Mr. Ado Osborn, I graciously accept your worthy and timely advice: "Have a day off mate, less is often more."
I think maybe I'll take more than a day, start with my weekend early, and purposely focus on off-line endeavors.
Likewise, Mr. Osborn, have enjoyment this weekend.
//
x202 Maxwell C. Bridges : already attempted that
2017-12-18
Ho-hum, Mr. Calvin Kovatch. They already attempted that. Refer to section 11. Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al
Not only were they too lazy to contemplate Barium and Strontium coming from smoke detectors, they were too lazy to discuss a whole slew of elements in their table.
+++Quote
... it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions "Uranium" twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
+++EndQuote
While you are there, refer to the section 10 and 12. Same yourself some time. Bone up on what substantiates my argument. Then try to knock it down here. Forewarned is fore-armed.
//
x203 Bill Paisley : don't make any sense whatsoever
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley Yanno, there are some things in life that just don't make any sense whatsoever. Putting lipstick on a pig, is one. Braille menus at the drive-thru is another. Needing pilots with FAA certifications to crash an airplane would be a third. Going to the Un...See More
x204 Maxwell C. Bridges : judge on the merits of your posting
2017-12-18
Dear Mr. Bill Paisley, whereas it is not my place to judge on the merits of your posting, it is plain for all to see that it is OFF TOPIC and a distraction. You must be "all hat and no cattle" on the subject, because you didn't address a s.i.n.g.l.e item from the article. For shame, and how lame!
Step up your game, or STFU. That simple.
You are welcome to create a top-level posting of your own with anything from your comment. Maybe I'll participate to give you valuable feedback. Maybe I won't. (Probably the latter.)
Because you didn't address the topic at hand, I kindly ask you to DELETE YOUR COMMENT (and subsequently this one).
//
x205 Elizabeth Tague : truther petulance
2017-12-18
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague I love the smell of truther petulance ...
x206 Bill Paisley : with the disdain and derision it demanded
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley Maxwell Bridges, au contraire, mon ami! But I DID address the article -- I address the whole damn thing with the disdain and derision it demanded. Folly is what that is, folly and rubbish and as such will be mocked and looked at with the contempt it ...See More
x207 Maxwell C. Bridges : "folly and rubbish" without specifics
2017-12-18
Dear Mr. Bill Paisley, Far be it from me to point out your mistaken belief that simply calling something "folly and rubbish" without specifics somehow fits into the category of rational and reasoned discussion that LEGITIMATELY debunks the FGNW premise.
Nope. You prove how you are a deceitful cheater with this circus you are trying instigate and are lacking in integrity.
Kindly delete your comment that begins "Yanno,..."
And if you can't come to the table with section-by-section, point-by-point, image-by-image specifics as to why FGNW is in error, then you obviously then have nothing valuable to contribute, so your participation isn't needed. STFU, run along, buh-bye.
//
x208 Elizabeth Tague : riddled in petulance
2017-12-18
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Yep ... riddled in petulance.
x209 Bill Paisley : nuke was detonated under the World Trade Center
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley Lmao...Circus? Lacking in integrity?? "I'm" not the one claiming a nuke was detonated under the World Trade Center buildings. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you simply handwaving away the absolute impossibility of detonating a nu...See More
x210 Maxwell C. Bridges : hallmark of agenda-bound Q-groupers
2017-12-18
Circus, Mr. Paisley, because I never claimed "a nuke was detonated." Your dishonesty is showing. My premise is (a) 6-12 (b) fourth generation nuclear devices (c) per tower. Were you not so lazy and deceitful, you would have read my opus -- hell, even just the Section 28 summary -- and been able to talk knowledgeably on the topic.
It is becoming a hallmark of agenda-bound Q-groupers. You are ordered ~NOT~ to review substantiating material to any truther's claim. You are ordered never to change your mind, and reading something that connects together the dots better than (for sure) OCT will get you reprimanded. So you talk through your ass, and your argument consists of hypnotic suggestion with zip to substantiate it, and certain zip from the anchoring article of this discussion.
I take my responsibility to Truth seriously. You do not, because you are a circus act. Haven't hit a single point from my opus.
Read the article that anchors this discussion. Then let's discuss.
If you want to cut to the chase, read Section 14.
And here's is one of my substantiating documents.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
//
x211 Eric Conley : tag-team
2017-12-18
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges 'The tag-team of Mr. Eric Conley and Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith in one of the unproductive detours suggested: "The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred." '
<< You got that much right Maxwell Bridges - YOU are claiming use of FGNW at WTC - so YOU have to show - NOT that they COULD be used but that they were used.
Which - all your Gish Galloping of irrelevancies set aside - means that you:
1) Have to prove they were needed when the simple facts of physics are there was no need for ANY form of CD assistance; AND
2) Prove that they were used.
And I'll take a bet that you are not up to the challenge.
PLUS -BTW - I've been playing these games for many years. And childish insults will not influence me - so you may as well stop wasting energy posting them.
x212 Bill Paisley : not even worth any serious effort
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley You don't really have to go far to discount this out of hand. Its not even worth any serious effort to debunk it is so outlandish - and indeed it hasn't taken any serious effort to debunk.
Credentials and CVs mean nothing when examined in the context of common sense and science. There are some very "credentialed" people with seemingly impressive CVs who are members of the Flat Earth Society. Judy Woods, Jim Fetzer, John Lear, et al are just a few examples that have "impressive" credentials and CVs but can be mocked and ridiculed for the positions they take in this matter - DEW and No-Planer and Aliens on a base on the dark side of the moon. WTC nukes are in that same category.
There are 9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA). Not a single one of them have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
As of Feb 2016 there are 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and not one, not even those that have had serious disagreements with the United States over the years, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
The Nuclear Energy Agency has 31 member states and not a single one, through that venue, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
As a US naval flight officer I was in and around naval aviation much of my life. While I never was involved with "special weapons" (as nukes were called) since I was a fighter radar intercept officer, I have many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry and they agree - "nukes at the WTC", in any way, shape or form, is as absurd a claim as has ever been made by anyone, right up there with Flat Earth, We never Went to the Moon or No-Planes.
Sworn enemies of the US such as Iran and North Korea, both with robust and advanced nuclear programs, have not even accused the "Great Satan" of this "nukes at the WTC" claim. You'd think at least they would trumpet this loud and long, sticking it to the US high and hard, if there were any truth or veracity to it.
Of course, as with most Trutrher claims, the entire world must be "in on it", a vast conspiracy of silence where all the nations of the world band together to keep this a secret. Balderdash is the most polite term I can come up with for this. Pure and utter balderdash.
So you can keep on worshiping your "9/11 hero" as much as you like, touting his "credentials" and his CV to your heart's content. The sentient and critical thinking members of this spinning planet will continue to mock you and your "9/11 hero" and his ilk and we'll continue on in life, doing the things that we need to do to make this a better place for our friends, family, loved ones and everyone else on this rock.
x213 Maxwell C. Bridges : International Nuclear Regulators Association
2017-12-18
Dear Mr. Paisley, you wrote: "9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA), 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and 31 member states. Not a single one of them have come out in support of this 'nukes at the WTC' claim."
Good try, Mr. Paisley, but five-fold fail.
1) FGNW, not "nukes". Language is important particularly when the deep embedded connotations in the public's perception of a word ("nukes") can purposely mislead understanding.
2) Based on the media hype into what nukes are (e.g., very big, lots of radioactivity), even I don't support "nukes at the WTC" named as such. The premise is "FGNW at the WTC."
3) Owing to the largely successful Q-group disinformation campaigns to squash even the slightest whiff of "nuclear anything" involving among other personages a BYU professor of nuclear physics, I seriously doubt that "FGNW at the WTC" was ever presented to them and they were given an opportunity to voice their support of it. [Thanks for the idea.]
4) You try to discredit and disparage the reputation of man with your unwarranted CV comments.
5) You avoided analyzing the paper at the PDF link called "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
Seeing how you were bragging about being a US naval flight officer with "many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry", let's make your supposition about their no-nukes beliefs a legitimate fact.
Please send them all a friendly email:
"Hey buddies. Got this wanker 9/11 Twoofer who thinks special nukes were used on the WTC. His premise is documented here [please provide link to my blog article anchoring this discussion] and has substantiation from the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer [please provide link to the PDF]. Could you please help me debunk (or validate) his bat-shit crazy premise? Does the science make sense? Does it explain better what was observed on 9/11? Thanks"
//
x214 Bill Paisley : deader than a bug squashed on the windshield
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley No need to bring anybody else into this discussion. This is already deader than a bug squashed on the windshield of the real world. Yeah...that big *SPLAT* you heard was your mini-nukes/FGNW/EIEIO argument coming in contact with reality. Simply wishing something were true doesn't make it so and there is no evidence, at all, anywhere, ever, anytime, anywhere of any sort of nuclear activity in New York City, not conventional nuke, not mini, not fourth generation or fifth or sixth or tenth or any combination of numbers or anything other than a 767 traveling at the speed of a .45 caliber bullet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
As far as contacting "experts" ...why don't YOU take these claims to Lawrence Livermore or Hanford or the NRC or any one of those aforementioned organizations and see if you can get their backing for this insane idea.
I'm not arguing the generational development of nuclear weapons. I maintain there is no evidence whatsoever for their use on 9/11.
x215 Maxwell C. Bridges : And a blogspot! How twee!
2017-12-18
Learning my lessons, like not to engage two 9/11 FB groups at one time, particularly one title "9/11 Debate - Debunkers vs Truthers."
In order to turn off unproductive, repetitive carousels, a funny exchange there went as follows.
MCB: [Posted a link to my blog article about FGNW.]
Debunker: "And a blogspot! How twee! I'd almost forgotten what they looked like! Which is why i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead!"
MCB: "One of the pieces of substantiating evidence for my blog article comes from Dr. Andre Gsponer who wrote 'Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects'." [Posted the link. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf ]
Debunker: "Point me to peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing."
MCB: "arVix.org is Cornell University Library, their physics section."
Crickets.
//
x216 Mike Phillipowsky : the spirit of civility
2017-12-18
Mike Phillipowsky
Mike Phillipowsky
Group Admin
Maxwell, while I do agree with your idea of point-by-point debate.... telling someone to “fuck off” isn’t in the spirit of civility.
Please, edit your comment. Thanks.
x217 Maxwell C. Bridges : Point-by-point debate. My earnest desire.
2017-12-18
Dear Mr. Mike Phillipowsky Good advice. The offending phrase has been deleted. My only excuse is that I made the mistake of posting in two 9/11 forum, and I've been equating participants from one with that of another. (Mrs. Tague is however in both and adds her mockery to both.)
Yes, please. Point-by-point debate. My earnest desire.
//
x218 Mike Phillipowsky : No harm, no foul
2017-12-18
Mike Phillipowsky
Mike Phillipowsky
Group Admin
Thanks, Maxwell. I appreciate it.
No harm, no foul.
x219 Maxwell C. Bridges : my 9/11 hero: Dr. Andre Gsponer
2017-12-18
Here you go, everybody. Dr. Andre Gsponer is my 9/11 hero, and he has never written one word that I am aware of about 9/11 or links FGNW to 9/11. Yet, he's the grand omission by all in the OCT, the 911 TM, A&E911 Truth, Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, ...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
For all you wannabe debunkers, now is your chance to debunk legitimately FGNW, nukes, DEW, the anonymous physicist, and Dr. Wood all in one go.
Reading the above, and FGNW immediately falls into the category of non-fiction. So save your unicorn smears for elsewhere.
Study it, and explain where it is wrong. Failing that, think out of the box about (a) if it were deployed, (b) what would it look like? sound like? leave behind?
Take your time. Lots of it. Read it thoroughly. (Go back to my opus, too.) Compose your well researched, well reasoned, well articulated rebuttal off-line. You're paid to do it; I'm not.
//
x220 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Gsponer's CV
2017-12-18
Check out Dr. Gsponer's CV.
http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf
//
x221 Conor Eaton-Smith : How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith So... Err what?
How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11?
Eric Conley
Eric Conley They dont.
x222 Maxwell C. Bridges : demolition plans part of building permit process
2017-12-18
Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, according to the disinformation from former Russian Agent Dimitri K (who promotes singular deep under ground nukes), NYC went through so many periods of scrape and build-anew, they had rules on granting building permits for very large structures that required end-of-life demolition plans. According to what the Russians acquired, nukes were part of the WTC plan.
Further, if we look into the disinformation of Dr. Wood (albeit not so completely full of disinformation as her detractors decry), she hints that the pulverization of content was a design goal of the demolition. Comparing large chunks of cohesive mass to pulverized mass, the latter do less collateral damage to neighboring structures, but particularly to the concrete "bathtub" that surrounded the WTC complex, kept the Hudson out, and consequently kept such flooding for going through the subway lines and damaging other areas.
FGNW fit into 9/11, because the logistics of controlled demolition using conventional chemical-based explosives would have been huge (three skyscrapers) and could not be completed in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior and up to 9/11.
Of course, if they would have used conventional explosives, they could have made the event appear "natural" or believable. The overkill pulverization and ejection of content from the earliest moments of annihilation was a give away of something else.
//
x223 Conor Eaton-Smith : a brief prima facie
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith So Maxwell Bridges that's an awful lot of words to not be able to present even a brief prima facie as to nuclear weapons and 9/11.
Try again.
x224 Eric Conley : obviously getting desperate
2017-12-18
Eric Conley
Eric Conley As long as "they" disagree with both you and me they are obviously getting desperate.
x225 Conor Eaton-Smith : falls at the first hurdle
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Yawn.
Maxwell Bridges - what is the point of further debunking a post when it falls at the first hurdle?
Why did the buildings require anything more than gravity, a plane crash, and fire in order to collapse?
Answer: they did not. So why you talking about nuclear weapons?
x226 Maxwell C. Bridges : Newton's Laws of Conservation of Energy
2017-12-18
What is the point of you participating when clearly you flunked high school physics and weren't permitted to take it in college?
You can't get over the first hurdle of Newton's Laws of Conservation of Energy. If an object (e.g., 20 stories above impact point) falls at gravitational acceleration, no energy is available for pulverizing or ejecting content. Given that all three were present, energy was added.
My esteem goes down for you with each exchange, Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, because you fail this simple concept of physics.
Although your argument doesn't merit it, I am perfectly happy making the big-ass ASSumption that a plane crash, fire, and gravity caused the initiation of collapse. Problem is, you stop there. So do your NIST sources. They don't explain gravitational acceleration, content pulverization, and content ejection. And neither do you.
So in answer to your last question, balancing the laws of physics is why I'm talking about FGNW.
In answer to your first question, the point of further debunking of my post is merited, because it clears by a wide margin the first hardle -- that of being compliant with physics and addressing all of the evidence.
It is important, because if true, the FIGURATIVE nuclear fallout from such FGNW being discovered as having been used on 9/11 -- from the US government's own arsenals --, it could lead to a huge cleaning of the swamp in institutions, departments, and agencies.
Damn, if FGNW don't explain the nature of GOP. They know what it was and it was on their watch. They know that it'll be eventually found out. So since Bush, they have callous as all get out, stealing and corrupting as much as possible.
//
x227 Conor Eaton-Smith : We've addressed this
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges. We've addressed this.
x228 Maxwell C. Bridges : flunking high school physics
2017-12-18
You flunking high school physics? So you admit to it.
Turns out you can learn what you need to know online. Google "Newton's laws of conservation of energy."
//
x229 Conor Eaton-Smith : margin of error
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Ok Maxwell Bridges. LOL.
As above and below. Define your margin of error that has a collapse proceeding at an average acceleration of under 6 m/s^2, is within your "margin of error" of g. Being 9.81 m/s^2 of course.
Your "margin of error" isn't meant to lead you to erroneous conclusions LOL.
:D
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Lol. So what exactly is your margin of error? Your margin for error for comparing a predicted rate of collapse to a theoretical rate of collapse is 25-40%?
LOL.
Which university did you go to exactly? :).
x230 Maxwell C. Bridges : explains what Dr. Wood couldn't
2017-12-18
This article explains what Dr. Wood couldn't. Please give it a read and a download.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Sure, it is speculative. All of the really juicy how-to nuclear information sits behind "national security" firewalls and draconian non-disclosure agreements that include charges of treason.
What is public on nuclear devices doesn't get there without vetting, without language being twisted from being "present state" to "what might be a future state."
//
x231 Conor Eaton-Smith : buildings could have collapsed by fire alone
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges... stop reposting the same retreads and deal with the fundamental issue.
Why do you think the buildings could not have collapsed by fire alone?
x232 Maxwell C. Bridges : Can't win by rational debate, so they resort to disinformation tactics
2017-12-18
Dude, this is my thread. The content is relative to the topic. Moreover, you haven't even looked into it to say "this is valid or this is bunk."
Much better my reasoned repetition to egg on some legitimate discussion, than the spamming I usually get from others. Can't win by rational debate, so they resort to disinformation tactics.
To your question, maybe the plane damage and fires COULD have initiated the collapse. For the sake of discussion, let's say they did. The issue is what happened after collapse initiation. Your energy equations for the evidence are way out of balance, and you're too much of an agenda-defender to acknowledge it.
BTW, your assumption isn't true: the plane damage and fires COULD not have initiated the pulverizing destruction. Why? The jet fuel had burned off in the first 10 minutes. The fires observed had office furnishings as fuel which can't get hot enough -- in the time period in question -- to weaken the structure.
Further, as designed, the load of the upper stories had already been transferred to sides without airplane gashes. Both towers were stable.
Further, the collapse was sudden and symmetric. Fires are asymmetric; they traveled; they were waning in WTC-2 and oxygen starved in both (e.g., black smoke = incomplete combustion). Through the path of greatest resistance. At gravitational acceleration. While pulverizing and ejecting content.
Your premise has been debunked. The only unresolved fundamental issue is your refusal to be compliant with the Newtonian laws of conservation of energy.
If you want to further discuss your "no-energy-added gravitational acceleration through the path of maximum resistance while pulverizing and ejecting content" premise, you'll have to do it from your own post. It doesn't belong here.
Even if you don't believe it, the expectation is that participants will make the big-ass assumption that FGNW were possible and were used, and explain how they don't match the evidence.
//
x233 Conor Eaton-Smith : isn't worth examining
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges. If the fundamental issues aren't addressed - your "content" isn't worth examining :).
As to your first actual claim - you've been repeatedly asked to show this. Yet you don't. Repeating the same claim ad naesum is not an argument, it's an opinion, demonstrably incorrect at that.
As for "the office furnishings as fuel etc." Demonstrate that this is correct. You'll find it tricky, given plasco.
Third statement - you're not addressing how the collapse is claimed to have started.
Claims at sudden and symmetric - how else would a collapse have started? See plasco.
Saying that the premise has been debunked - you have to show this Maxwell. You should know this. So why aren't you?
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Make a prima facie case for that and you win.
x234 Maxwell C. Bridges : this thread is for FGNW
2017-12-18
Show me ON YOUR OWN POSTING how to make a prima facie case.
But do it for OCT and its sudden and symmetric pulverizing collapse through the path of greatest resistance while ejecting content and not having any energy added.
Meanwhile, this thread is for FGNW. Discuss the topic, or go elsewhere.
BTW. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. Beat you to it. The ole "making a prima facie case" for FGNW.
Duuuuuuuuuh? Refer to the blog posting that is the anchor for this discussion.
//
x235 Conor Eaton-Smith : Crap In, Crap out
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Why so aggressive Maxwell Bridges? Is it because you know that you haven't addressed the fundamentals and thus all that 'work' you have done, based on a false underlying assumption is wrong?
Crap In, Crap out my friend.
x236 Maxwell C. Bridges : Too lazy and too stupid to address my sources
2017-12-18
Why do you post bullshit distractions? Too lazy and too stupid to address my sources -- point-by-point -- to debunk them?
Come on. If it really was your lame-ass gravity without energy added, then you could go through point-by-point and explain where my analysis goes wrong.
Here's the catch. Your premise can't explain the other anomalies given in my blog posting: steel doobies, steel arches, steel horseshoes. Go ahead. Explain them with gravity and no energy added.
//
x237 Conor Eaton-Smith : wasnt enough energy
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith I'm dealing with the fundamentals, which you apparently ignore.
You have repeatedly claimed that there simply wasnt enough energy - show this. :).
x238 Maxwell C. Bridges : Still don't have your own link to a go-to posting
2017-12-18
Fundamentals that you don't grasp. Still don't have your own link to a go-to posting that lays out your claim and defends it with real physics.
//
x239 Conor Eaton-Smith : couldn't be bothered
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Lol.
Firstly it's your claim and secondly don't forget that physics is physics. I don't need to "post a link" to prove your statements wrong lol.
Manage
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Since Maxwell Bridges couldn't be bothered to answer this post originally here we go.
"You have not started there Maxwell :). You've skipped go and gone straight to FGNW :).
"Within the margin of error of free-fall"... What does that even mean? Oh an an object dropped from either roof? Well apart from 'your' margin of error apparently being 20% despite the hours being the same height - the collapses didn't start from the roof!
Oh and quote the NIST collapse times please. I think you've got them wrong."
x240 Maxwell C. Bridges : stop spamming this FGNW thread
2017-12-18
Take your OCT discussion elsewhere and stop spamming this FGNW thread with nonsense.
//
x241 Conor Eaton-Smith : Life is hard
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Answer the points Maxwell Bridges. Don't be scared. You brought physics into this, so nut up or shut up.
Are you all mouth and no trousers Mr anonymous?
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Oh my word, that is fabulous.
Could you actually provide your definition of "margin of error". That's fabulous.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith It is interesting that Maxwell Bridges claims that average acceleration of 5.7-6.8 m/s^2 are within the "margin of error" of 9.81 m/s^2.
Beautiful.
That's some margin of error Max.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Lol, the last statement. That maybe your "margin of error", but generally margins of error are not between 25 and 40% of the observed reading lol!
Come on Maxwell Bridges do explain what 'your' margin of error actually consists of :).
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Oh, and if you're talking about energy balances Maxwell Bridges, that's exactly what you can do. You claimed that the collapses proceeded at "freefall speed" and because of this there was no energy to do anything else. The collapses actually happened at least 25-40% slower than that, stating the obvious that energy was dissipated doing something else as well.
I I know max. Life is hard!
x242 Maxwell C. Bridges : defending the OCT blatant lies and deceit
2017-12-18
Life is extremely hard for you. Always defending the OCT blatant lies and deceit. All you got is mockery and game playing.
When considering the great strength of the WTC towers as the path of greatest resistance, you have yet to provide any force equations on the upper story mass to prove that gravity alone had sufficient energy to pulverize content & (stronger) structure below in a time within 2.7 seconds of free-fall.
Worse, is that the "upper story mass" or "pile driver" was far from a cohesive whole. Just look at the Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
How did that originally solid "upper story mass" suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity? How did it suddenly loose 65% of its structural strength become "not" solid anymore, put pulverized?
I'll save you some time. FGNW.
FGNW deposit highly energetic neutrons DEEPLY PENETRATING into materials. Ablating is one effect. Volume heating is another. Heat supporting steel instantly to foundry levels, and they'll lose strength. A side effect of ablating, is that the instant vaporization of the leading surface can send a shock wave into the rest of the (heated & weakened) material, "dustifying" it. The steel pans for the concrete floors and their supporting trestle were woefully under-represented in the debris pile, while pulverized concrete was everywhere.
//
x243 Conor Eaton-Smith : energy balances
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith It is interesting that old Maxwell Bridges still gets the basic physic wrong.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Oh, and if you're talking about energy balances Maxwell Bridges, that's exactly what you can do. You claimed that the collapses proceeded at "freefall speed" and because of this there was no energy to do anything else. The collapses actually happened at least 25-40% slower than that, stating the obvious that energy was dissipated doing something else as well.
I I know max. Life is hard!
x244 Maxwell C. Bridges : path of greatest resistance
2017-12-18
When considering the great strength of the WTC towers as the path of greatest resistance, you -- Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith -- have yet to provide any force equations on the upper story mass to prove that gravity alone had sufficient energy to pulverize content & (stronger) structure of itself in that first phase.
The "upper story mass" or "pile driver" was far from a cohesive whole. Just look at the Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
How did that originally solid "upper story mass" suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity? How did it suddenly loose 65% of its structural strength become "not" solid anymore, put pulverized?
I'll save you some time. FGNW.
FGNW deposit highly energetic neutrons DEEPLY PENETRATING into materials. Ablating is one effect. Volume heating is another. Heat supporting steel instantly to foundry levels, and they'll lose strength. A side effect of ablating, is that the instant vaporization of the leading surface can send a shock wave into the rest of the (heated & weakened) material, "dustifying" it. The steel pans for the concrete floors and their supporting trestle were woefully under-represented in the debris pile, while pulverized concrete was everywhere.
//
x245 Conor Eaton-Smith : Must be too hard
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and since Maxwell Bridges is on one of those episodes here is another post left unaddressed. Must be too hard for Maxwell. Unsurprisingly.
"Oh and "Energy had to be added" - show this Maxwell! It's all very good saying it, but since you brought up physics... You'll know that you'll need to show your working :).
"Over designed for the mass above? Sure. What is the difference in force that a 1 kg static load presents and the impact load of the same mass dropped from 4 metres. Assume that it takes less than 0.1mm to come to a complete stop."
x246 Maxwell C. Bridges : Address the Cornell University article
2017-12-18
Address the Cornell University article on FGNW. That would be on topic. Otherwise, you're spamming this thread, and it is so noted (and your integrity in the eyes of objective readers gets appropriately dinged.)
//
x247 Conor Eaton-Smith : disparaged my physics credentials
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Lol. You made the statements.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith You then disparaged my physics credentials.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith And then you refuse to answer a simple question. Not a surprise Maxwell Bridges.
x248 Maxwell C. Bridges : Don't be pawning onto me the busy work
2017-12-18
Distractions that have already been addressed. I'll copy and paste my original response:
Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, Don't be pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims. You make the lame claim, you defend it.
And when you show the physics calculations for the impact load of the 1 kg mass A dropping from 4 metres onto mass B, your work must prove that weaker mass A can pulverize stronger mass B ~and~ that the acceleration of combined mass A+B after impact remains at gravitational acceleration (no slowing after impact) when they travel the next 4 meters to mass C.
I'm feeling fair. Although strength of mass C > mass B > mass A, you can assume A=B=C. Also, although mass A (the upper 20 stories) was pulverized and wasn't a cohesive whole anymore before it approached mass B, I'll let you assume a solid mass A.
Remember that according to your premise, energy cannot be added and the combined masses cannot slow from gravitational acceleration after impact.
//
x249 Conor Eaton-Smith : It is always funny to see 9/11 truthers
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith It is always funny to see 9/11 truthers disparage other people's abilities especially in regards to physics, yet be completely unable to work out simple forces.
x250 Maxwell C. Bridges : You're the one making the case, you prove it
2017-12-18
Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, I don't need to work them out. YOU DO. You're the one making the case, you prove it. You cough up the physics.
Were I to do it for you, I'd be a chump to perform busy work that you'll promptly ignore.
The burden of proof is on you.
But it shouldn't happen here, because it is off-topic. Make your own damn thread with your prima face case.
You're a game player, otherwise that's were you'd be.
//
x251 Conor Eaton-Smith : Life is hard.
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Actually Maxwell Bridges - you're the one who claims that collapse couldn't have happened because of the structure was over designed for "the mass above".
Show this Maxwell. Your claim. But first you'll need to know the likely collapse mechanism and be able to work out forces.
:). I know. Life is hard.
x252 Maxwell C. Bridges : Energy was added
2017-12-18
According to David Chandler, the 20 stories= 200 ft (assuming 10 ft/story) fell a1 at 65% the speed of gravity. [Numbers can be tweaked, but the conclusion will be the same.]
a1 = 6.31 m/s^2 = (6.31 m) * (3.28 ft/m)/s^2 = 20.7 ft/s^2
t1 = sqr[2 * d1/a1]
t1 = sqr[2* 200 ft/ (20.7 ft/s^2)] = sqr[400/20.7 s^2]
t1 = 4.4 seconds
The top 20 stories took 4.4 seconds to pulverize through to the impact zone, which is d2 = 1100 - 200 ft = 900 ft.
NIST says total collapse took 11 seconds. Time for d1 was t1, 4.4 seconds. Therefore, time to fall remaining d2=900 ft is given by t2.
t2 = 11 - 4.4 seconds = 6.6 s.
a2 = 2*d2/(t2^2) = 2*900/(6.6 s)^2
a2 = 41.32 ft/s^2.
Bad new for you OCTers.
Conclusion: This simple calculation says that the acceleration from the impact level down to the street was FASTER than gravitational acceleration (32 ft/s^2).
You can tweak the number of stories, etc. but the conclusion will be the same. Downward acceleration FASTER than gravity while pulverizing and ejecting content.
If you admit right now that Allah is great and can break his own laws of the physical universe, maybe I'll give you a pass.
But because you probably aren't Muslim, the proper answer is: Energy was added.
//
x253 Conor Eaton-Smith : Answers on a post card
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Old Maxwell Bridges appears to have made another fundamental "ASSumption". AND IT IS DELICIOUS. For some strange reason, Old Maxwell Bridges has assumed that the collapse 'immediately' reduces in velocity from 27.8 m/s to zero and the collapse commences from zero velocity again. Which is plainly incorrect!
If we actually plug in Maxwell Bridges time & distance figures, as well as derived velocity at the end of Bridge's first stage (27.8 m/s or 91.1 ft/s) into: a = 2s/t^2 - 2u/t
a= average acceleration
s= Displacement
t= Time
u= Initial velocity
we'll find that the collapse rate is much slower (4.2 m/s^2 or 13.1 ft/s^2). So clearly something is wrong with Max's use of s = ut + ½at^2, as well as there is likely something wrong with at least some of Maxwell Bridges underlying assumptions.
However what'll we also note is the Maxwell Bridges does not explain how his 'hypothesis' explains how the rest of the building managed to descend faster than gravity would provide on it's on, despite having nuclear bombs applied force, below it :).
Answers on a post card.
x254 Maxwell C. Bridges : v1 was not included
2017-12-18
Congratulations, Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith. Indeed v1 was not included, and v1=91.1 ft/s is what I get, too. And indeed, it does reduce the acceleration a2. Yes, a2 is slower than gravity.
Alas, we put the cart before the horse if you don't analyze how the upper 20-stories -- without the benefit of a pile-driver on top -- could decimate themselves suddenly such that the roof's acceleration was a constant 20.7 ft/s^2, which is 65% gravity. Which implies the upper block lost a minimum of 65% of its internal strength instantly. (Given the over-design aspect, the actual strength lost was more.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
My answer is the FGNW deposited highly energetic neutrons into the upper block, turning concrete to powder, vaporizing the steel plates that held the concrete floor slaps, and effecting volume heating (to foundry levels) on the other structural elements to make them lose strength.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges Seeing how Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith keeps trying to distract us (spam us) with OCT disinformation about Allah breaking his own laws of physics, and seeing how I do desire rational discussion on the FGNW topic, here's what participants need to review.
Here you go, everybody. Dr. Andre Gsponer is my 9/11 hero, and he has never written one word that I am aware of about 9/11 or links FGNW to 9/11. Yet, he's the grand omission by all in the OCT, the 911 TM, A&E911 Truth, Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, ...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
For all you wannabe debunkers, now is your chance to debunk legitimately FGNW, nukes, DEW, the anonymous physicist, and Dr. Wood all in one go.
Reading the above, and FGNW immediately falls into the category of non-fiction. So save your unicorn smears for elsewhere.
Study it, and explain where it is wrong. Failing that, think out of the box about (a) if it were deployed, (b) what would it look like? sound like? leave behind?
Take your time. Lots of it. Read it thoroughly. (Go back to my opus, too.) Compose your well researched, well reasoned, well articulated rebuttal off-line. You're paid to do it; I'm not.
//
x255 Conor Eaton-Smith : spamming
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges since you're spamming your own Thread, please address the following posts which you repeatedly fail to address.
"You have not started there Maxwell :). You've skipped go and gone straight to FGNW :).
"Within the margin of error of free-fall"... What does that even mean? Oh an an object dropped from either roof? Well apart from 'your' margin of error apparently being 20% despite the hours being the same height - the collapses didn't start from the roof!
Oh and quote the NIST collapse times please. I think you've got them wrong."
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and since Maxwell Bridges is on one of those episodes here is another post left unaddressed. Must be too hard for Maxwell. Unsurprisingly.
"Oh and "Energy had to be added" - show this Maxwell! It's all very good saying it, but since you brought up physics... You'll know that you'll need to show your working :).
"Over designed for the mass above? Sure. What is the difference in force that a 1 kg static load presents and the impact load of the same mass dropped from 4 metres. Assume that it takes less than 0.1mm to come to a complete stop."
x256 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ho-hum, spammer
2017-12-18
Ho-hum, spammer.
Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, Don't be pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims. You make the lame claim, you defend it.
And when you show the physics calculations for the impact load of the 1 kg mass A dropping from 4 metres onto mass B, your work must prove that weaker mass A can pulverize stronger mass B ~and~ that the acceleration of combined mass A+B after impact remains at gravitational acceleration (no slowing after impact) when they travel the next 4 meters to mass C.
I'm feeling fair. Although strength of mass C > mass B > mass A, you can assume A=B=C. Also, although mass A (the upper 20 stories) was pulverized and wasn't a cohesive whole anymore before it approached mass B, I'll let you assume a solid mass A.
Remember that according to your premise, energy cannot be added and the combined masses cannot slow from gravitational acceleration after impact.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNIIdpMhFg
x257 Conor Eaton-Smith : wittering about physics
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith That's brilliant. Maxwell Bridges wittering about physics and is unable to work out forces.
Beautiful.
x258 Maxwell C. Bridges : One link and be done
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith post a link to where you made your lame-ass speculation into gravity without added energy caused pulverization through the path of greatest resistance. You are making the claim; you provide the physics that validates it. Don't be pawning off on me the busy work to make your case (because I already know that it can't be done.)
One link and be done. You've been championing it for years. Put up and shut up.
Thereafter, the topic is FGNW.
//
x259 Conor Eaton-Smith : unable to work out forces
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Lol.
Maxwell Bridges. All those words and you're still unable to work out forces!
x260 Maxwell C. Bridges : fall back to spamming
2017-12-18
Debunk David Chandler. Still unable to address it point by point, so you fall back to spamming this forum.
Why are you so concerned about attacking me and not my premise? Because you are an agenda-defender spammer whose only tools are distraction; not rational discussion.
//
x261 Conor Eaton-Smith : appeal to authority
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith "Debunk David Chandler" - resorting to appeal to authority already Max? You're the poster who makes reference to physics - are you know telling us you're unable to back up your big words?
Show your work Maxwell Bridges.
x262 Conor Eaton-Smith : ASSume
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Let's start where you "ASSume" that the collapses required additional energy :).
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges "The discussion in this thread is about FGNW."
WRONG - yet again Mr Bridges. It is YOUR OP in which YOU state:
" This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center."
So - correcting your lie - "The discussion in this thread is about a claim that FGNW were used at wTC on 9/11" << Your claim - WERE USED - your burden of proof.
I'll remind you once again that YOU have not posted any hypothesis supporting EITHER a claim that FGNW were used on 9/11 OR how FGNW were used.
x263 Maxwell C. Bridges : not risen up to READ it, much less debunk
2017-12-18
I rose up to the burden of proof. You have not risen up to READ it, much less debunk. All you can do is drop hypnotic suggestion that I haven't.
If you aren't willing to do legitimate work as a debunker, then you are a tool and agent of disinformation.
RTFM, mo fo.
//
x264 Conor Eaton-Smith : ASSumption
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges - your underlying "ASSumption" is that the buildings required something else to collapse. I'm challenging this fundamental "ASSumption".
To which, you've demonstrated handily that your underlying argument is incorrect because you did not consider the initial velocity on your "second stage".
Who were you calling a "Liar and a Idiot"? :).
x265 Maxwell C. Bridges : suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity
2017-12-18
Own what I was calling you. You earned it.
Life is extremely hard for you. Always defending the OCT blatant lies and deceit. All you got is mockery and game playing.
When considering the great strength of the WTC towers as the path of greatest resistance, you have yet to provide any force equations on the upper story mass to prove that gravity alone had sufficient energy to pulverize content & (stronger) structure below in a time within 2.7 seconds of free-fall.
Yes, I left out v1 (the velocity after time t1), because it is your premise that upper blocks were a cohesive pile driver; under that assumption, v1 of the block is zero.
Worse, is that the "upper story mass" or "pile driver" was far from a cohesive whole. Just look at the Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
How did that originally solid "upper story mass" suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity? How did it suddenly loose 65% of its structural strength become "not" solid anymore, put pulverized?
I'll save you some time. FGNW.
FGNW deposit highly energetic neutrons DEEPLY PENETRATING into materials. Ablating is one effect. Volume heating is another. Heat supporting steel instantly to foundry levels, and they'll lose strength. A side effect of ablating, is that the instant vaporization of the leading surface can send a shock wave into the rest of the (heated & weakened) material, "dustifying" it. The steel pans for the concrete floors and their supporting trestle were woefully under-represented in the debris pile, while pulverized concrete was everywhere.
//
x266 Conor Eaton-Smith : what is my premise again?
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Sorry, what is my premise again? Making stuff up again Maxwell Bridges?
You have caught out on basic physics - so own it Maxwell Bridges.
x267 Maxwell C. Bridges : downward acceleration of WTC-1
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith apply your basic physics to the downward acceleration of WTC-1. Explain with gravity alone and no energy added how the pulverized content could be seeping out so soon, and without a block on top to make it so.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges The discussion in this thread is about FGNW. It is not gravitational acceleration without energy being added.
Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, stop spamming this thread with your non-sense of gravity without energy being responsible.
//
x268 Conor Eaton-Smith : further more hilarious
2017-12-18
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith Isn't it funny that the only person spamming this group is the anonymous poster who repeatedly cut and pastes the same posts onto different groups with 5 minutes of each other.
Conor Eaton-Smith
Conor Eaton-Smith It's further more hilarious - that old Maxwell Bridges uses terms like "path of greatest resistance". It's folk physics - and old Maxwell Bridges still spouts it like it means something.
LOL
x269 Maxwell C. Bridges : I desire rational discussion
2017-12-18
Isn't it funny how my comments uses physics and validated papers on physics, and how I desire rational discussion. Yet those who respond do so by spam, by mockery or by assuming that the OCT and its physics is true. Therefore, those cowards foist up the strawman that FGNW can't be discussed until their gravity-only pulverizing collapse is debunked. They want me to do their work.
//
x270 Bill Paisley : the most insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous things
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley As far as I'm concerned, you have posted nothing but spam. The very idea of a nuclear device being set off in downtown Manhattan on Sept 11 is without a doubt the most insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous things anyone has ever come up with in recorded history. The only people rallying around this crazy, nutz-o thing are fringe and beyond the fringe nut-jobs who have no grasp on the realities of this life. Any rational, sentient, breathing and upright human being with two brain cells to rub together understands that no nuke was used on 9/11. To claim so does nothing but advances the comical element of life.
x271 Eric Conley : repeated false claims and evasions
2017-12-18
Eric Conley
Eric Conley I agree Bill - and - in more formal language - he has simply failed to meet Burden of Proof and repeatedly uses lies and other debating tricks.
In essence he makes two claims viz:
1) FGNW could have been be used to bring down WTC Towers; AND
2) FGNW were used.
All his posting is directed at "1)" - the "could have been used" aspect of FGNW capability. Which may be true or false BUT is irrelevant - moot - until he proves "was used". (In a murder by shooting case the prosecution has to prove that the deceased was killed by a bullet deliberately fired by the accused with the intent to kill. Proving that many experts agree that bullets can kill does not make the case. It is irrelevant. Maxwell Bridges's "proof" is equivalent to multiple reposting/re-linking of proof that bullets can kill. Wow. ;) )
AND - to prove "was used" he MUST show how it fitted into the actual observed collapse mechanism(s). AND - to do that - it MUST be the trigger for the "cascading sequenced failure" of columns which initiated the collapses of the two Twin Towers. That sequence took minutes of elapsed time. So he needs to explain how a single device acted unobserved over several minutes OR why a sequence of micro-mini devices were needed with staggered firing times -- when in reality the actual heat driven process did not need assistance
Naturally he is not up to the challenge hence the repeated false claims and evasions.
x272 Bill Paisley : Using the Reasonable Man's approach...
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley We have a saying in the Navy that we use often - "Using the Reasonable Man's approach..." which, in my definition, is a head nod to a logical, practical, ethical, no-nonsense examination of the facts of a case and applying what any reasonable man/person would apply in those cases. It has not failed me in the years I have employed that approach to things and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is tempted by the Dark Side of Trutherism.
x273 Maxwell C. Bridges : hypnotic suggestion and mockery
2017-12-18
Shit, you are the debunkers, yet your statements amount to hypnotic suggestion and mockery. "The very idea of a nuclear device being set off in downtown Manhattan on Sept 11 is without a doubt the most insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous things anyone has ever come up with in recorded history."
If it is really so "insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous", then it should be easy for you to legitimately debunk it: section by section, source by source.
Your problem is that you are paid to defend an agenda: that of the OCT and a gravity collapse. A fiction. Energy had to be added.
Look closely at the analysis of the WTC-1 upper stories. Turn the volume off if you have to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
FGNW explains how those upper 20 stories could instantly lose symmetrically 65% of their strength (if not more) to fall at 65% gravity while indicating pulverization of content, yet another huge energy sink that gravity alone cannot account for.
//
x274 Bill Paisley : stunning absurdity and insanity of that claim debunks itself
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley It *is* easy for me to "legitimately debunk" anything you claim regarding nuclear weapons being detonated at the WTC on 9/11. How do I do it? Simply point to your posts. The stunning absurdity and insanity of that claim debunks itself. No question. I look forward to more of your Gish-gallop and tortured locution.
x275 Maxwell C. Bridges : Sooooo-oooh convincing
2017-12-18
Bravo, Mr. Bill Paisley. That was just Sooooo-oooh convincing. You really got me with that comment. It is in a league by itself. Golly-geesh, I have never been so blown away with stellar intellect and articulation that simply makes my toes curl and my pubic hair stand up-right.
The sunning absurdity and insanity of the debunkers debunks themselves with every weasel move to avoid. talking. specifics.
//
x276 Bill Paisley : Yanno
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley Yanno, whether or not I am convincing to someone who believes nuclear weapons were detonated in lower Manhattan on 9/11...well, let's just say I'm not really too concerned about that.
x277 Maxwell C. Bridges : weasel cheater
2017-12-18
"FGNW," you weasel cheater. If you can even use the proper terminology, then you obviously know nothing on the subject.
Worse, you don't even want to try to learn something about the subject. Here's a quote from a real scientist:
+++
Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized DT-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
+++
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges It talks about detonating in air. Now consider detonation from within a structure.
//
x278 Bill Paisley : Reasonable man's approach
2017-12-18
Bill Paisley
Bill Paisley "Reasonable man's approach": Detonate nuclear weapons "within a structure" and it collapses from the top down.
x279 Maxwell C. Bridges : position of ignorance
2017-12-18
Arguing from a position of ignorance is not strength. RTFM. //
x280 Eric Conley : lies about lies
2017-12-18
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges "Isn't it funny how my comments uses physics and validated papers on physics" << Which are irrelevant and have been falsified
"...and how I desire rational discussion" << A lie - you have evaded debate by false counter-claims
"Yet those who respond do so by spam, by mockery..." << False and partial truth respectively - the mockery of the stupid aspects of your claims is warranted.
"...or by assuming that the OCT and its physics is true." << False - the fatal problem lies within YOUR claims in that you fail burden of proof to show how FGNW were needed and were used at WTC and you repeatedly lie by claiming you have met your BoP when you haven't.
"Therefore, those cowards foist up the strawman that FGNW can't be discussed until their gravity-only pulverizing collapse is debunked." << Constructive lies...the legitimate demand made of you is that you prove FGNW was/were used. The extant hypotheses of the accepted narratives remain until you falsify them and produce better. You dishonest assertion of the strawman "their gravity-only pulverizing collapse" is an evasion by you.
"They want me to do their work." << another lie - whatever true or errant claims debunkers may have made makes zero difference to the fact that YOU have not met your BoP. YOU have not "done YOUR work".
x281 Maxwell C. Bridges : foisting up a straw-man
2017-12-18
My premise is FGNW, not gravity-driven pulverization (your premise.) You've been foisting up a straw-man that I first have to debunk your premise first before you'll discuss details of FGNW. Game playing and cheating.
But I did debunk your premise. I did it by first assuming gravity-driven pulverization was true, and then working out why the energy equations in the physics don't add up. The David Chandler videos, you've ignored.
You have not done any similar favors of assuming my premise true, and then working out why it might not be.
Everything you and your debunking team mates have asked, to your chagrin, I have delivered. You ignored it, which then categorizes the request as busy work and more game playing.
Stop playing games. You want FGNW debunked? So do I. It can only be done legitimately, section-by-section.
The reason you haven't done that: you'd have to acknowledge and rescue the nuggets of truth that gravity-driven pulverization cannot: like horse shoes, arches, steel doobies, vehicle damage, and meteors.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges Isn't it funny how you have not once referenced and debunked any section in the document, that coincidentally uses physics and is a validated paper on physics?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Gee, David Chandler is a high school physics teacher, and you haven't explained how gravity got the WTC-1 tower to pulverize itself.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges Quote:
Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized DT-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
x282 Eric Conley : explain HOW FGNW could have been used at WTC
2017-12-18
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Why not stop the stupid speculations and simply explain HOW FGNW could have been used at WTC.
x283 Maxwell C. Bridges : Why don't you RTFM
2017-12-18
Busy work, busy work, busy busy busy work.
Why don't you RTFM, you weasel and cheater? You complain about me posting spam, but I've been posting URLs to the two articles that you are too chickenshit to wade into. Might hurt yur widdal bwaayne.
You gave me that challenge before. I obliged. Multiple times. You go find it. I made it easy for you by putting in the leading tag "[Batshit crazy speculation]".
//
x284 Elizabeth Tague : FORTHCOMING
2017-12-18
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague BETTER QUOTE ...
(1 Introduction
Sixty years after the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, this paper is discussing
the elaboration and characteristics of a forthcoming generation of war-fighting
nuclear weapons which has been under serious consideration for more than fifty
years, and which may become a reality within a decade or two)
I'll highlight the RELEVANT words for Bridges in case they flew over him
FORTHCOMING
MAY BECOME A REALITY WITHIN A DECADE OR TWO
MAY ...short word ...BIG meaning.
x285 Eric Conley : I choose to NOT play his silly game
2017-12-18
Eric Conley
Eric Conley ^^^ Understood Elizabeth - BUT I'm sure you understand why I choose to NOT play his silly game. The fatal aspect is that - even if they were viable - they were not used AND could not be used.
x286 Bob Weber : mini-nukes are real
2017-12-18
Bob Weber
Bob Weber Everyone knows that mini-nukes are real! The NWO even announced them on the Japanese children's TV show STARMAN! Aren't kids TV shows where the NWO deliberately tips its hand? ??
x287 Maxwell C. Bridges : turned off commenting for this post
2017-12-18
Discussion here has run its course. If you want to further debunk it, I'd be happy for the efforts. On my blog. Follow the link to the article that anchors this posting.
Meanwhile, by design of FB, you can let this thread slip lower and lower and out of view so that it practically disappears.
//
{mcb: turned off commenting for this post.}
x288 Maxwell C. Bridges : Participants at Fair and Civil have been busy... Ignoring this post
2017-12-18
Participants at Fair and Civil have been busy... Ignoring this post. And then creating their own posts with a straw man interpretation of this premise and ad hominem attacks.
I just want it legitimately debunked so I can stop being the sole duped useful idiot who believes it as truth and rabidly defends it. Make a convincing, rational argument so I can change my mind and be ushered like a lost sheep back into the fold of whatever it is I'm supposed to believe about 9/11.
//
x289 Elizabeth Tague : Mizz Maxwell Bridges
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Mizz Maxwell Bridges is quite the little COWARD turning off comments.
Fear riven she is !!!
x290 Eric Conley : a persistent liar
2017-12-19
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Plus a persistent liar who will not accept burden of proof for the claim that FGNW were used at WTC.
x291 Elizabeth Tague : spamming that link from Cornell
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague He keeps spamming that link from Cornell which CLEARLY shows such don't even exist yet ... yet the deluded whiner that is Ms. Bridges spews their use on 9/11.
x292 Maxwell C. Bridges : not a bot
2017-12-19
Unlike you, I am not a bot who never tires of cranking over and over the same circus carousel spins.
I do tire. I am also not a team, so multiple fronts is unproductive.
Although both groups are chock full of disinformationalists, I deem this one as being more full of it.
You want it? Go here.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1449086582078917/permalink/1943547549299482/
//
x293 Elizabeth Tague : turn all the commenting back on
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Jimmy should just turn all the commenting back on ....
x294 Maxwell C. Bridges : points for the number of emoticons and irrelevant (ad hominem) memes you post
2017-12-19
You added nothing worthy to the discussion, anyway. Why do you care?
Oh, I know why. You get points for the number of emoticons and irrelevant (ad hominem) memes you post. Factors into your paid disinformation position.
//
x295 Elizabeth Tague : quite frankly DELUSIONAL self-absorption and ego
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Thaty's the point you keep FAILING to grasp.
I DON'T care ...NOBODY does for your rather inept and inane, and quite frankly DELUSIONAL self-absorption and ego
x296 Eric Conley : sidetrack of definitional pedantry
2017-12-19
Eric Conley
Eric Conley If we sink to his (and "their") level every time they evade by playing ad hom against you - you win. "They" cannot support their claims on topic so resort to so called "ad homs"...
...most of which are not "ad hom" but that is a sidetrack of definitional pedantry ;)
x297 Maxwell C. Bridges : could have taken me seriously and legitimately taken on my premise
2017-12-19
Another disinformationalist tactic is projecting your weaknesses onto your opponents. I'm not the one (a) spamming threads with emoticons, (b) spamming threads with memes, (c) spamming threads with insults and mockery, (d) spamming this forum with what is clearly an ad hominem attack.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
You dumb fucks. Rather than egging me on and having me prove what agents you are, you had two choices, and you screwed the pooch on both of them.
(1) You could have taken me seriously and legitimately taken on my premise. I would have even helped. Hell, I gave you a 31 section outline of the major points you have to debunk. I simplified and even gave you a scientific, peer-review paper on a reputable scientific web site; you couldn't be bothered to RTFM.
(2) You could have STFU and not proven the coordinated agenda to silence all contemplation of nuclear-anything on 9/11.
//
x298 Elizabeth Tague : tiny box of tissues
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Here Mizz Bridges ...dry your eyes ...
{mcb: meme of two fingers and a tiny box of tissues.}
x299 Elizabeth Tague : a deluded fucknugget
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Take you seriously ... fuck off ... you are CLEARLY a deluded fucknugget and NOTHING but a deluded fucknugget.
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague MORE FAIL for you Ms.Bridges ...NOBODY is paid to point and laugh at a deluded lunatic like you.
x300 Maxwell C. Bridges : you look weak that you can't address specifics
2017-12-19
This ad hominem attack posting? Not very convincing in debunking FGNW. Makes you look weak that you can't address specifics, but have to go after the man. This can only degrade your integrity.
//
x301 Elizabeth Tague : petulance is showing again
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague So many words from Ms.Bridges ... NOTHING said.
As usual ...
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Your petulance is showing again ... its funny ...
x302 Maxwell C. Bridges : you look weak that you can't address specifics
2017-12-19
This ad hominem attack posting? Not very convincing in debunking FGNW. Makes you look weak that you can't address specifics, but have to go after the man. This can only degrade your integrity.
//
x303 Elizabeth Tague : Meme: I STILL DON'T GIVE A FUCK
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague
{mcb: Meme of President Obama and the words "I STILL DON'T GIVE A FUCK".}
x304 Eric Conley : many times debunked the claim "FGNW were used at WTC on 9/11"
2017-12-19
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Elizabeth I understand clearly that the viability/effectiveness of FGNW is "sus" BUT he claims they were used and wont support that claim. So the issue of viability is moot...it's the same problem as much argument about "thermXte" which also could NOT...See More
Eric Conley
Eric Conley ^^^ Lie - there is not a single comment there about the "man" - I once again challenged you claim AND showed why it is false.
Eric Conley
Eric Conley ^^^ And I have now many times debunked the claim "FGNW were used at WTC on 9/11"
x305 Elizabeth Tague : Nutcase4DaTwoof
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague He'a just another Nutcase4DaTwoof ...
x306 Eric Conley : persiteant avoidance of debate and his lies
2017-12-19
Eric Conley
Eric Conley Elizabeth Tague Sure - and way beyonf my normal "two posts rule" with his persiteant avoidance of debate and his lies.
x307 Maxwell C. Bridges : chickenshit idiot coincidence theorists
2017-12-19
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Follow the link.
Or hell, go to my blog and debunk it there, chickenshit idiot coincidence theorists. //
x308 Eric Conley : Meltdown noted
2017-12-19
Eric Conley
Eric Conley ^^^ Meltdown noted. get back to me if you decide to get serious....and HONEST.
x309 Elizabeth Tague : Meme: STOP NOW NOBOY CARE
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague
{mcb: Meme of 1950's era man in suit and tie, hand held up as a stop gesture, and the words "STOP NOW NOBOY CARES".}
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague
{mcb: Meme in a mock-up of the 20th Century Fox logo with spot lights but with the words "NO ONE CARES".}
x310 Maxwell C. Bridges : Very convincing, but only of your agent traits
2017-12-19
Can't address the subject (FGNW), got to attack the man. Very convincing, but only of your agent traits that frame you as being agenda driven and lacking objectivity by orders. //
x311 Eric Conley : your alleged cowardice
2017-12-19
Eric Conley
Eric Conley The actual OP topic of THIS thread Maxwell Bridges is your alleged cowardice. And the actual topic about FGNW is your claim that FGNW were used at WTC on 9/11. On which topic you persist in trying to prove FGNW have some capabilities BUT you will not try to prove "were used at WTC".
x312 Elizabeth Tague : an attention whore
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague He's just an attention whore desperately looking for someone to take him seriously and then he can get to pretend he is special.
x313 Eric Conley : measure of his claim
2017-12-19
Eric Conley
Eric Conley ^^^ I've had the measure of his claim for a long time and his motivations are reasonably obvious. ;)
x314 Maxwell C. Bridges : your agent traits frame you as being agenda driven
2017-12-19
Attacking the man in this posting? Very convincing, but only of your agent traits that frame you as being agenda driven and lacking objectivity. Under orders. //
x315 Elizabeth Tague : Meme: YO DAWG, I HEARD YOU LIKE SPAM.
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague
{Meme of a black man, possibly famous, saying "YO DAWG, I HEARD YOU LIKE SPAM. SO WE PUT SPAM IN YO MEME SO YOU CAN SPAM WHILE YOU SPAMSPAMCOUDCONNECTSPAM".}
x316 Maxwell C. Bridges : projecting your weaknesses onto your opponents
2017-12-19
Another disinformationalist tactic is projecting your weaknesses onto your opponents. I'm not the one (a) spamming threads with emoticons, (b) spamming threads with memes, (c) spamming threads with insults and mockery, (d) spamming this forum with what is clearly an ad hominem attack.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
You dumb fucks. Rather than egging me on and having me prove what agents you are, you had two choices, and you screwed the pooch on both of them.
(1) You could have taken me seriously and legitimately taken on my premise. I would have even helped. Hell, I gave you a 31 section outline of the major points you have to debunk. I simplified and even gave you a scientific, peer-review paper on a reputable scientific web site; you couldn't be bothered to RTFM.
(2) You could have STFU and not proven the coordinated agenda to silence all contemplation of nuclear-anything on 9/11.
//
Elizabeth Tague turned off commenting for this post.
x317 Maxwell C. Bridges : wonderful article that government agents here should "debunk".
Here is wonderful article that government agents here should "debunk".
For ease of reading, you can get the PDF download at this link too, so you can read and study it offline.
If you can debunk the following source -- like through some other learned PhD to Cornell University --, why I'd be all ears.
But it you can't, you need to be thinking whether or not some of it could apply to any aspect of 9/11.
[physics/0510071] Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges [Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of material. Can be tweaked in the discussions.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. Therefore I speculate that FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months. Such may have saved the firemen. May have been the cause of WTC-7 not coming down as planned with the other structures.]
When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. When these neutrons hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the layer vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave through the rest of the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, and what became known as "the meteor."]
The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them. The debris pile and area had examples of another anomaly that I call "steel doobies," which are the three beams of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or joint, or doobie) and held together by their three spandrels. In other words, the spandrels were heated sufficiently to become pliable such that the destructive shock-wave forces could wrap the beams together. One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground. [The OCT doesn't explain this anomaly.]
When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories, he calculated that the roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton. This meant, the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
WTC-1 upper 20 stories wasn't completely symmetric and started toppling over and out of the path of maximum resistance. Then suddenly, its angular momentum was halted and it accordioned in on itself. It was no longer a cohesive whole toppling to the side.
Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. Some content may have passed multiple times into the path of lower FGNWs, thereby resulting in smaller and smaller pieces.
This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself. You can see material formerly affixed to the spire suddenly turn to dust and linger in the air as the steel of the spire disappears downward.
The reason the firemen in the stairwell survived has to do with aiming or with malfunction of the device that would have decimated their corner.
Games have been played with the audio of many videos, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such CD cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun, but at a countable cadence, once every 1/2 second to second, which would also underscore the idea of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that were they used (and certainly to achieve pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors. Furthermore, when conventional chemical devices are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- violent destroys other content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from chemical explosives. The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud. Content ablating and being destroyed by shockwaves created deep within the content would have a different sound.
Placement of FGNW in other buildings were different. WTC-6 crater shows really well how conical shaped FGNW spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
Aircraft was restricted from flying over the WTC, and directly over the towers. All cameras and helicopters were far away, owing to the danger from these devices being aimed upwards.
Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. It explains the experiences of an EMT who was running from WTC-6 (where the Feds had some sort of command center in the lobby) and was hit by the door of a parked car that popped out of its frame and off of its hinges to forcefully smack her into the wall.
Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are close, but in a disinformation bent don't connect dots and purposely avoid valid nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell Bridges More details and substantiation sources.
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x318 Elizabeth Tague : LURVE the sound of his own voice
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague Somebody sure does LURVE the sound of his own voice !!!
The rest of us just hear blah! blah! blah!
x319 Maxwell C. Bridges : How many times have to seen these links
2017-12-19
And your comment relates to arxiv.org how? How many times have to seen these links and made dismissive comments without details? You don't got it, not the intellect or the rhetoric. Even your mockery is worthy of being mocked. Lame. So lame. //
Manage
arXiv.org e-Print archive
Open access to 1,337,155 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance, Statistics, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science, and Economics
arxiv.org
x320 Elizabeth Tague : Meme: No
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague
{mcb: Meme with fat Siamese cat, blue-eyed squinting, and text "NO."}
x321 Bob Weber : No need to "debunk" anything that's pure speculation.
2017-12-19
Bob Weber
Bob Weber No need to "debunk" anything that's pure speculation.
x322 Maxwell C. Bridges : easy to debunk on a personal level
2017-12-19
Written by someone who didn't go to the arxiv.org link. You Debunkers are easy to debunk on a personal level. Too lazy. //
arXiv.org e-Print archive
Open access to 1,337,155 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance, Statistics, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science, and Economics
arxiv.org
x323 Elizabeth Tague : Meme: Oh Girl
2017-12-19
Elizabeth Tague
Elizabeth Tague
{mcb: Meme of Willy Wonka (actor Gene Wilder) leaning his head against his hand, and text: "OH GIRL YOU'RE SO DIFFERENT. TELL ME ABOUT THIS SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE AWARD WE SHOULD GIVE YOU".}
x324 Maxwell C. Bridges : see if FGNW doesn't answer it better
2017-12-19
Dear Mr. Bob Weber, for the sake of discussion, please try to speculate using FGNW. Make the big-ass assumption that FGNW existed and were operational on 9/11.
Go through a list of evidence from 9/11 and see if FGNW doesn't answer it better -- even down to the Tague meme-games.
I'm trying to get FGNW legitimately debunked. You'd be a big hep if you could speculate.
Lord knows Truthers have been cutting the OCT debunkers slack for years, making all sorts of big-ass assumptions about gravity and allowing the OCTers to speculate that no energy was added. (Now dat's kway-zee.)
//
x325 Daniel M. Plesse : Falling For a War Game
2017-12-19
Daniel M. Plesse
Daniel M. Plesse "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects " my god
Daniel M. Plesse
Daniel M. Plesse added to "Falling For a War Game "
x326 Tone Westervoll Hansen : asking a question and then turning off comments
2017-12-19
Tone Westervoll Hansen
Tone Westervoll Hansen
Group Moderator
Maxwell Bridges - asking a question and then turning off comments? Do you think that’s a good way to debate? I’ve turned the comments back on, allowing people to actually reply.
x327 Maxwell C. Bridges : multiple discussion fronts
2017-12-19
Dear Ms Tone Westervoll Hansen, I am a lone participant, religiously fanatical about truth. I am not a team. I made a couple of mistakes here.
One in particular was opening up multiple discussion fronts. And then also experiencing postings from other trying to try me in and distract me, and give them home court advantage. I can't keep up.
I can't control other people's postings. But I can control mine and limit where I play, being a single entity.
And if participants are upset about me turning off the comments, they have ample links to be able to find me on the "interwebs" and engage me in reasoned dialog that I would eagerly welcome. Nothing is lost.
FTR, this discussion was ended. My turning off comments helped us both; me for removing a playing field where I participate, and you for not having to worry about this inconvenient subject anymore. Inside of a day or two of your regulars posting their schlock, this article will get pushed down and down and down out of view.
//
x328 Tone Westervoll Hansen : people on this page are individuals
2017-12-19
Tone Westervoll Hansen
Tone Westervoll Hansen
Group Moderator
Maxwell Bridges - I have no idea about what “teams” you are talking about. AFAIK - people on this page are individuals, just as interested in the truth as you claim to be. However; I am a mod here, and as a mod, I will tell you again that asking a question, and straight away closing the thread for replies, is NOT the way to debate. Even a 5th grader knows that. Therefore; leave the comments open. Jimmy Quaresmini - your page - your call, but I stand for my action in this thread.
x329 Maxwell C. Bridges : I see your point
2017-12-19
Dear Ms. Tone Westervoll Hansen, Ok. I see your point. I will remove the comment with the rhetorical question that asked "Where are all the learned debunkers to mock FGNW and say they don't exist?"
And then I will turn the comments off again, because I don't want to engage here.
Please. Just let this posting die a quiet death. I don't want to come here to defend it. I'm a fan neither of the participants nor the rules that permitted the spamming and mockery.
And if I error in the desire of participants to engage this topic, I am reachable and can change my mind.
//
{mcb turned off commenting for this post.}
Part 5: Blue Sky NPT at WTC
{mcb: The following were snippets of discussion in the Blue Sky Facebook groups on 9/11. It tried to be a truther page of the NPT @ WTC variety. }
| Debunker | Truther |
|---|---|
|
|
x331 Maxwell C. Bridges : planes at both towers were fake
Dear Mr. Farkle,
I take issues with your statements: "(1) The planes at both towers were fake. Plenty of vidoe on this. (2) The debris at the base of the tower was planted. The video evidence showed that no debris fell from the plane impact."
If you want to argue that the planes were not the alleged commercial planes, fine. But to call the fake in the wake of copious amounts of physical and video evidence is wrong (and its true disinformation purpose is to distract from the real instances of no planes at the pentagon and Shanksville.)
I used to be a no-planer of the September Clues variety that focused on video/imagery fakery. I can point to valid instances of imagery manipulation, but my subsequent deeper research did not support it to the extent the September Clues promotes it. My research into holograms did not validate this either, and in fact exposed deceit in those who promote it.
Two main items changed my belief. (1) The 3D analysis of NY overlayed by nearly every single amateur video that proved a co-linear flight path agreeable with each other and two sets of radar data. (2) The physical evidence of planes, in particular the images of the partial wheel assembly stuck between the box columns of a wall assembly that was ripped out of the back-side of WTC-1 and photographed lying in a parking lot near the towers before either came down.
The following link takes you directly to the relevant portion of an earlier discussion I had on the subject.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html#x224
Contrary to what you wrote, the video evidence shows lots of debris falling from the plane impact. Three aspects of physics needs to be considered when talking about that.
(1) The distance between the camera and the towers has one under-estimate the size of debris. What looks like dust or smoke are in reality much bigger pieces.
(2) The nature of the towers. The box columns (three per wall assembly connected by spandrels) were not solid steel. They were hollow. The face of the wall itself was made up of 50% window slits. Once the leading edges of the fuselage overcame these barriers, Penetration
(3) The velocity-squared term in the energy equation. When velocities are very large, the resulting energy can be significantly greater than the structural energies of the materials involved. In other words, wings and tails won't bounce off as cohesive wholes, but will shatter. The videos document shattering and debris falling, although as mentioned from the camera distance, has the appearance of dust and tiny pieces. They weren't.
I could go on, but a rabbit hole has been provided and debunking NPT at the WTC isn't my 9/11 hobby-horse.
//
x332 Roy England : indestructible engines shattered
2017-12-09
Roy England
Roy England you say that the indestructible engines shattered ??? how does that happen. you say a partial wheel assembly made it through the tower.. did they find that next to the slightly burnt passport of one of the so called hijackers.. this has got to be the year of miracles when 3 skyscrapers come down in a demolition controlled way and the cause was the fires from the jet fuel. it didn't take long to bring those towers down do you suppose the molten steel pouring out of the towers make it necessary to pull the plug earlier than what was planned...I mean seeing molten steel pouring out from a fire that wasn't hot enough to bend steel let alone melt it into flowing rivers of it. commercial planes did not hit the towers nor the pentagon nor a field in pennsylvania....they were military aircraft (drones). the people who planned 911 did a piss poor job of it..their biggest mistakes were getting rid of the evidence so fast and hiding what documentation they have about it from us the black boxes. what could possibly be a good reason to hide them from us. its simple they hide it because they dont want us to know what is hidden it would make their version of what happened even more harder to explain... oh by the way can you explain building #6 you know the one no one wants to talk about....the one that its core was missing ...this building tells it all..why would you remove the core from a building...need help....give you a hint.... controlled demolition.. its a sad world we live in when there are people who value the almighty dollar over people.. how can they be proud of profits made from killing people, maiming them destroying families HOW EFFING DOES ONE LIVE WITH THEMSELVES KNOWING WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO ACHIEVE FINANCIAL SUCCESS THE ONLY FRIENDS THEY HAVE ARE BOUGHT AND THOSE WHO CAN BE BOUGHT ARE NO BETTER THAN THEIR NEW MASTERS.. I RATHER BE POOR AND IN CONTROL OF WHAT I DO THAN TO BE SOMEONES BITCH
x333 Maxwell C. Bridges : velocity-squared term in the energy equation at high velocities
Dear Mr. England, Kindly take a breath... Breathe in. Hold it. Breath out. Repeat.
Likewise, learn to SHIFT+ENTER that will insert a line break into your submission allowing the formation of paragraphs. (Pressing ENTER by itself pre-maturely posts your comment.) Or, you can write off-line like I do.
You hyperventilated: "you say that the indestructible engines shattered ???"
I did not.
What I said was that the velocity-squared term in the energy equation at high velocities becomes sufficiently large to overcome structural energies and shatter materials involved in the collision.
This would be most notable in the damage from wings (not engines or fuselage) against the steel of the hollow box columns in the wall assemblies. Wings shattered, but not before inflicting damage to the box columns.
One can see where the engines hit how wall assemblies were pushed, some box columns bent, and some severed.
Regarding WTC-6. Owing to the four (or more) separate operations, one can easily fall into the trap of saying, "if it was X here in instance A, then it was probably X in instance B." Such laziness in logic is used against us, like in the disinformation campaign NPT. This being said, I'll be lazy in saying FGNW were used on the towers and many of the buildings around the towers which are purposely left out of the limelight by OCTers: WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6...
The towers had the benefit of aiming FGNW upwards into many floors of structure and content. They could be staggered in detonation with controlled overlap.
The problem with WTC-6 is that it only had eight stories of building structure and content. Its several devices pulverized right through the roof. Shaped FGNW charge kept the sides, just like the towers each had spires that they didn't hit.
To your rhetorical questions in all capital letters:
The PTB (powers that be) were told early on of the consequences of disastrous policies, such as the use of plastics, or green house gases. Hard to stop. What is easy is to accelerate it and hope in the game of musical chairs that they'll be able to buy for them and their ancestors the highest, safest, most wonderful chair first before the music runs out on human life on this planet.
Afghanistan was about natural gas and heroin. Iraq was about oil. Feed and promote the American addiction to fossil fuels that ruins their very environment.
Trump and the Republicans in Congress are criminally corrupt and are doing their darnest in this short window of time to destroy as much as they can and grab for themselves as much as they can... before the music stops.
Truth be told, public revelation of a nuclear 9/11 might inspire a figurative nuclear fall out to the leaders, institutions, and agencies... a true cleaning of the house, maybe even making government anew. This the PTB fear the most, so nuclear 9/11 (with FGNW) is a message they are still decades away from admitted. (Half century; have they admitted to JFK?) Hence the reason this FB group exists to squash rational thought away from such obvious conclusions.
//
x334 Ferd Farkle : if UA175 hit
2017-12-09
Ferd Farkle
Ferd Farkle
Group Admin
What would you expect to have happen if UA175 hit the South Tower?
x335 Maxwell C. Bridges : captured on many different videos
2017-12-09
What was captured on many different videos.
No planes at the WTC is a crafty disinfo campaign designed to distract and discredit the actual instances of no planes.
Crafty. You've been duped. I was, too, by September clues. Kept learning, was open-minded, and discovered their major flaws and dishonesty.
//
x336 Ferd Farkle : when "UA175" contacted
2017-12-09
Ferd Farkle
Ferd Farkle
Group Admin
What do yo think happened when "UA175" contacted the South Tower?
Ferd Farkle
Ferd Farkle
Group Admin
I don't know much about September Clues. I have watched as much video as I can find
x337 Maxwell C. Bridges : happened when "UA175" contacted
2017-12-09
As far as propaganda disinformation goes that was foisted on the world, but particularly Americans, September Clues stands among the best. For this reason alone, it is worth googling and going down that rabbit hold. 9 or so episodes. Very crafty.
To your repeated question, "What do yo think happened when "UA175" contacted the South Tower?"
The nose cone of the fuselage crumpled in spots that weren't window slits in the wall assemblies. Then the nose landing gear came up through and pushed against the wall assemblies. Connecting bolts were severed and the wall assemblies were pushed inside. The fuselage interected two floors designed for vertical loads, not horizontal. Fuselage gets a scalping hair cut and amputating shoe shine initially from the floors. Given the space between floors, not too difficult for the incoming mass even if crumpling to get them to bend, accordian, or moved out of the way. All this before the engines hit.
The engines with landing gear come along and does more of the same. Certainly by this point, the remaining fuselage doesn't have much except the inner core and other wall assembly to stop its forward momentum. One of the engines slowed down from its impact velocity (500 mph) to as little as 122 mph to go the distance to the Park Avenue roof it hit before bouncing to the streets.
One fragment of the landing gear has so much energy after entering the towers, it was able to embed itself between hollow box columns of the other wall assembly and rip that whole wall assembly off of the backside.
The box columns of the wall assembly were covered in aluminum cladding. Important for two reasons. First, this is what got knocked off and gave the wingtip-to-wingtip impression of an outline that NPT hype to all hell. The box columns themselves did not sustain the same decimating damage wingtip-to-wingtip.
If I were to make any complaints about the WTC aircraft, the discovered parts purposely were not serial-numbered identified to match the alleged commercial aircraft. The government never made a case that proved all of the alleged hijackers got on all of the alleged planes and they all flew the full route. Meaning, the spead and precision are giveaways (along with the mysterious route, transponders off, in cases going off radar) that the impacting aircraft might not have been the alleged commercial aircraft. Suped-up could mean more penetration and damage, if this was a concern that they wouldn't have enough plausible damage to explain the initiation of annihilation.
They were going to nuke the towers anyway and the planes within. The escaping aircraft pieces were not planned.
//
x338 Ferd Farkle : Are you adhering to the Official story from NIST
2017-12-09
Ferd Farkle
Ferd Farkle
Group Admin
So you think that the 4 camera angles agree with your version of what happened, or do you think the the camera records are wrong? Are you adhering to the Official story from NIST and others that the plane made it to the core columns and severed up to 10 of them to cause the catastrophic collapse,
x339 Maxwell C. Bridges : each depict my version
2017-12-09
Actually, there were at least a dozen camera angles that were overlaid on a 3D rendering of NYC depicting flight paths in agreement with another and two different sets of radar data.
Yes, I think they each depict my version.
No, I am not "adhering to the Official story from NIST and others that the plane made it to the core columns and severed up to 10 of them to cause the catastrophic collapse".
What I'm saying is that the aircraft achieved deep penetration and there was nothing physics defying or "cartoon-ish" about it. I was about to write "or CGI-ish about it." Despite my belief in real aircraft, I know there are instances (two for sure) of CGI being deployed. Leaves the door open for "enhancements" that might have been perpetrated for whatever reason on the imagery.
Penetration was important for the ruse of the buildings collapsing. However, "initiation of collapse" is a different thing to speculate about than "anomalous features of the pulverization and free-fall that happened immediately after initiation of the collapse." The latter they don't go.
The towers were stable after both impacts, indicative of the over-design and automatic load shifting of the structures. Firemen on WTC-2 made it to the impact floor and radioed how many (water) lines would be needed to control the fires: not that many. Destruction of WTC-2, which was hit second and had fewer and smaller fires, happened first for this reason shortly after that radio transmission. Can't have firemen stopping it.
//
Part 6: Clear explanation on why WTC towers collapsed?
{mcb: The following were snippets of discussion in the Facebook groups on 9/11. It tried to explain everything with a "chimney effect." }
| Debunker | Truther |
|---|---|
|
|
x341 Maxwell C. Bridges : errors in your thesis
2017-12-19
http://www.sarovic.org/blog/a-clear-explanation-why-the-twin-towers-collapsed
Dear Mr. Aleksandar Sarovic,
The first error in your thesis is this statement:
"[The towers] were standing on massive steel columns located in the core and perimeters of the building. Steel columns were the strongest part of the twin towers. They were 3” thick at the bottom of the building and a ¼ inch at the top."
No, the perimeter was composed of wall assemblies, each consisting of three hollow box columns 30 ft tall connected together by spandrals. The thickness of the steel of the hollow box columns was thicker when used at the base of the towers than when used at the top.
The second error in your thesis is this statement:
"The planes’ impact of the twin towers made significant damage. It made big holes in the towers which disturbed the equilibrium of the construction. According to NIST the planes destroyed 14% of the columns. ... But some of the columns next to the destroyed part of the towers have certainly overpassed the safety factor and were in large danger to collapse."
The equilibrium of the construction was restored; the load had already been shifted by design to the intact wall assemblies and core. The towers were stable before they were annihilated by other forces.
The fourth paragraph is a blatant exaggeration and over-statement having nothing to do with the WTC damage.
The fifth paragraph is a blatant lie. "Then fire from the planes’ kerosene further deteriorated the carrying capacities of the already damaged steel construction." No, even NIST says that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the fire ball, and the remaining jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes. Thereafter, fires were fueled by office furnishings and building content which do reach temperatures sufficient to compromise the strength of steel were we to neglect the dark sooty smoke that indicates inefficient fires.
Paragraph six beginning "The fire damaged the weak floor construction first" is a fiction. The fires were insufficient to cause significant expansion of trussle beams. You state in paragraph two: "The trusses were the much weaker part of the buildings. They transferred their load to the columns connected by bolts." The bolts were designed-in failure points. They would have severed before they could exert sufficient force to bend core columns.
I'll not waste more time debunking your thesis, because it does not even explain the observable evidence. Namely, the fact that upper 20 stories were torn apart before their mass (now pulverized) could progress below the impact level.
Downward Acceleration of WTC-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
Observers didn't hear one boom, but a countable cadence of booms.
I say that all of the evidence can be better explained by FGNW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Here's some reference material for your research.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
x342 George Secher : TWIN TOWERS MECHANICAL INSIGHT
2017-12-21
George Secher
9/ 11 TWIN TOWERS MECHANICAL INSIGHT
Before we can consider alternative explanations, that are complex, exotic casting blame on ourselves a thorough check of the "APPARENT" dynamics must first be explored. It is an established universal principal that invariably, in most cases mechanical realities are simple in nature but that we commonly seek out instead more complex unlikely explanations while the obvious correct reality may hide directly in our view in a "where's Waldo" type scenario often confusing immensity and depth with complexity.
HOW FIRE MANIFESTED TO CAUSE STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Fire has been discounted by some from being the cause of structural failure for two reasons:
1. IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT JET FUEL BURNS ONLY BETWEEN 800 TO 1,500 F:
Those numbers however were acquired through conventional open flame tests in an unenclosed environment making them misleading for in true reality under the right circumstances temperatures of jet fuel combustion can be far higher.-
ESTABLISHED DYNAMICS ON SUPPER HEATED AIR AND STACK EFFECTS
The well known and studied "chimney effect" or "stack effect" consists of a combustion chamber with two adjacent vertical vents above it to both provide a passageway for the hot exhaust fumes of a fire to rise as well vent as well as a passageway for cold return fresh air to replace the heated air and feed the fire with oxygen. It is typically used with a furnace, boiler or fireplace with the use of a chimney. In addition to venting noxious fumes and replacing the out going air it also allows the fire to burn more effectively, (hotter).
A MODIFIED STACK EFFECT
Unlike the well studied and documented vertical stack effect involving a vertical rise inside a chimney, the twin tower's conditions created a modified version of it. The tower's interior actually functioned as the burning chamber while a large vent opening caused by a plane crash entry into the towers substituted for a conventional stack effect vent or a "MODIFIED stack effect". It only varied in having a HORIZONTAL unenclosed path to the outside instead of a vertical vent line but still highly effective in moving air caused by great contrasting temperature air masses.
NATURAL APPLICATION EXTRAPOLATION
Just as with the conventional vertical version, a rush of air was strongly induced through the temperature difference between outside and inside temperatures where by a hot layer of air from inside escaped at the top portion of the breach while the cooler outside air entered beneath by being drawn in by warm air's exit creating a rapid self perpetuating circulation. It caused the fire to become perpetually hotter due to an ever increasing oxygen supply while the building served as an enclosure trapping and continuously elevating the ambient heat level. All combined, in effect it became a stack effect with the building functioning as the combustion chamber or fireplace and the plane breech serving as the chimney. Because it allows toxic fumes into a living space, the method has no practical functional value and so the twin tower version is not the typically studied one, (it would be foolhardy to intentionally operate one), never the less a modified stack effect has the same basic combustion dynamics as the conventional stack or chimney effect in it ability to create supper heated air.
ESTABLISHED COLOR RELATIONSHIP TEMPERATURE TO STRENGTH
Even within the 800 to 1500 degrees F level, steel is red hot. Starting at 800 F it already acquires a dull red hot condition and at 1500 it is relatively bright red to easily weaken a buildings structure enough to cause great damage and failure. There have been experimental demonstrations on the internet showing that at 1500 F steel can not even support a very light weight load. Much beyond 1500 F steel becomes very bright red and pliable so if fire hadn't already caused structural failure and collapse it would with certainty beyond that temperature range. We must bear in mind that steel already melts at only 2,500 F. but long before that point it will have very little strength CANCELING OUT THE STRONGEST STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. We must look at it this way; if the old time blacksmith could depend on the metal's red color to shape his steel, the same dynamic will also weaken a buildings structure allowing mechanical failure to occur - most assuredly at the higher levels.
THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE RULE
Just as the laws of the universe that create these dynamics, they pay no heed to our building codes designed to keep us safe, likewise, it behooves us as well to favor the universal laws over our man made contrivances that entrap our thinking into paradigms … . when we do we may then achieve mechanical clarity. In the final analysis, the temperature in the towers combustion area, (entire floors), conservatively elevated to around 2,000 degrees F or more, especially in the fire's epicenter, (as opposed to the text book "conventional combustion" scenario of 800 to 1,500 F), hence only 20 minutes or so were required to bring down the towers.
2. FALLACY OF SHORT BURN TIME FACTORING OUT FIRE AS CAUSE.
All fuels contain a predetermined corresponding amount of heat measured in BTUs. The rate it is released while burning will dictate its temperature while burning. For example, it is established that a slow burn time will create a relatively cooler fire and ambient temperature compared a more rapidly burning fire with the same fuel quantity, thus creating a hotter fire with a subsequent hotter ambient temperature. This translates to meaning that the modified stack effect that caused a rapidly burning fire, elevated the fire's temperature to weaken the towers steel cores. Conversely, if it had burnt longer it may not have ever reached the needed temperature threshold to cause the chain reaction that took the towers down.
PROFESSIONAL FALLACY THROUGH LINEAR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The engineer's, designer's and scientist's linear tables and charts can actually interfere with otherwise clear mechanical vision by locking them into erroneous pre-determined heat transfer figures. The quantity of oxygen contained in the fuel mixture can make a very critical difference in burning temperatures. For example, acetylene gas's normal burning temperature is close to that of natural gas or jet fuel, no where close to bring steel to a cherry red temperature, let alone melt steel, and yet when oxygen is added through a manifold torch its flame can melt a line of steel efficiently enough to cut it to pieces. Another example is the 9/ 11 Pentagon incident itself. The fine misting of its fuel caused by its direct hit plane collision at relatively high speed, caused the fuel's full BTU content to release all at once creating a VERY SHORT DURATION BLAZE due to an ideal fuel to oxygen droplet mixture, as seen on a surveillance camera video while also explaining the plane's disappearance with little debris left over. The bulk of the plane was DIRECTLY exposed to temperatures of perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 degrees, (far above the 1,500 ceiling for jet fuel declared by the professionals), vaporizing most of it quickly out of perceivable existence, (and stymieing the so called experts). The example's purpose is not so much to explain what happened at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania sites as to demonstrate how the professionals standard textbook tables, charts and numbers can limit clear vision, dynamic assessment and an overview of true reality. By blocking this wisdom through their focus on standard linear numbers the professionals and subsequently the public deceive themselves.
HOW FREE FALL MANIFESTED TO DEMOLISH AN OTHERWISE SOLID DESIGN,
It is established that at free fall, acceleration rates multiply around 3.2 times its original stationary weight every 10 feet. However the towers collapsed at 65% of free fall speed making the impact weight approximately 2.0 times its original weight for every 10 feet of decent. Maximum decent speed is reach at around 1,500 ft or around twelve floors. At that point the impact weight would add up to around 30 times its stationary weight. Being that fire was seen to be present in 18 to 21 floors caused by fuel flow, mostly below the planes impact heights, we can know that the fire affected steel was present for quite an expanse when desending affording far less resistance than the cooler floors below that. By the time the collective decent of the multiple floor grouping reached the cooler lower level floors, the falling mass inertia had reached its full gravity impact weight of around 30 times its stationary weight easily enabling it to smash through the cooler floors below it to complete the destruction. NOTE - it matters not how soundly engineered the building structure was, it was not designed to carry collective impact weights of those magnitudes - fancy math is not necessary to conclude what caused the towers structural failure, it becomes obvious - the towers were designed to carry perhaps at the most several multiples of its normal occupied weigh, not 30 times it, and especially when red hot do to its the stack effect dynamic during the pivotal first 12 floor decent acceleration.
IN SHORT
The building's structural resistance did not possess adequate "breaking ability" to overcome an EFFECTIVE weight of 30 times its free standing weight, especially at the point where inertia began where its core was heated to very red hot temperatures . At best it could only slow it down marginally throughout its entire decent ….. as it did.
REVIEW - SUMMERY:
A modified chimney effect incorporated the entire interior of both of crash areas into a combustion chamber with ample flew air through the planes entry breaches elevating the ambient temperature high enough to bring steel beams and supports to a red hot condition causing both towers to decend at ever increasing speeds with enough force and inertia to cause all floors to fail.
While the scientists, designers, and engineers work from their "calculus instruction book" intended for their pre- designed engineering projects, clear mechanical insight and problem solving methods through simple deductive extrapolation can easily envision true mechanical dynamics and provide needed answers beyond the "text book".
x343 Maxwell C. Bridges : [Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers
[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of material. Can be tweaked in the discussions.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. Therefore I speculate that FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months. Such may have saved the firemen. May have been the cause of WTC-7 not coming down as planned with the other structures.]
When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. When these neutrons hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the layer vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave through the rest of the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, and what became known as "the meteor."]
The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them. The debris pile and area had examples of another anomaly that I call "steel doobies," which are the three beams of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or joint, or doobie) and held together by their three spandrels. In other words, the spandrels were heated sufficiently to become pliable such that the destructive shock-wave forces could wrap the beams together. One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground. [The OCT doesn't explain this anomaly.]
When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories, he calculated that the roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton. This meant, the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
WTC-1 upper 20 stories wasn't completely symmetric and started toppling over and out of the path of maximum resistance. Then suddenly, its angular momentum was halted and it accordioned in on itself. It was no longer a cohesive whole toppling to the side.
Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. Some content may have passed multiple times into the path of lower FGNWs, thereby resulting in smaller and smaller pieces.
This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself. You can see material formerly affixed to the spire suddenly turn to dust and linger in the air as the steel of the spire disappears downward.
The reason the firemen in the stairwell survived has to do with aiming or with malfunction of the device that would have decimated their corner.
Games have been played with the audio of many videos, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such CD cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun, but at a countable cadence, once every 1/2 second to second, which would also underscore the idea of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that were they used (and certainly to achieve pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors. Furthermore, when conventional chemical devices are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- violent destroys other content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from chemical explosives. The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud. Content ablating and being destroyed by shockwaves created deep within the content would have a different sound.
Placement of FGNW in other buildings were different. WTC-6 crater shows really well how conical shaped FGNW spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
Aircraft was restricted from flying over the WTC, and directly over the towers. All cameras and helicopters were far away, owing to the danger from these devices being aimed upwards.
Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. It explains the experiences of an EMT who was running from WTC-6 (where the Feds had some sort of command center in the lobby) and was hit by the door of a parked car that popped out of its frame and off of its hinges to forcefully smack her into the wall.
Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are close, but in a disinformation bent don't connect dots and purposely avoid valid nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
//
+++B
x344 Maxwell C. Bridges : most of Dr Griffin's book
2017-12-21
I have most of Dr Griffin's books and have been a big fan for years. He taught a lot about debunking OCT premises. Point by point, he went through his opponents' arguments, quoting them, and then providing references and reasoned analysis why it probably wasn't so.
I have endeavored to do the same with regards to 9/11 having nuclear components: fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW). In my trips around the 9/11 block, it hasn't been debunked by 9/11 truthers or 9/11 debunkers. It is why Dr. Wood's work was prompted up; she collects all of the evidence of 9/11 having nuclear components and parks it under kooky umbrellas. Yet still, her disinformation work was closer to the truth than many would care to admit, which is why her work hasn't been legitimately debunked by other inside or outside the 9/11 TM, because it forces them to acknowledge nuggets of truth rescued from the disinformation that their premise would have to address and can't.
Dr. Griffin wrote a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Among other sections, section 7 stands out with evidence that the 9/11 TM doesn't.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x345 Maxwell C. Bridges : a glaring omission
2017-12-21
The above references the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, who is a glaring omission from Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and the entire 9/11 TM. Here is his relevant article on the Cornell University Library archives in physics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
I mined material from his work in section 14.
I humbly and sincerely request that people review my work. I would be overjoyed to have it debunked, because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot promoting it.
With kind regards, a sincere and earnest truth seeker.
//
[physics/0510071] Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral…
x346 Maxwell C. Bridges : applaud the effort, but not the analysis and reasoning
2017-12-21
The summary you were too lazy to read was in section 28.
Mr. George Secher, I apologize if I confuse your participation with that of others encountered in 9/11 discussion groups. But it was your participation in one of them that brings me to this group and notifies me of your premise.
(BTW I applaud the effort, but not the analysis and reasoning. I'll go into details in subsequent comments in a new thread, okay?)
Indeed you are correct, I should be and will be addressing specifics in your premise that you kindly gave us in the long top posting.
Consider the above *seemingly* unrelated postings from me as reference material. To tackle some of your points, I may use the above. Consider it also me heading off carousel spins asking me renewed for equivalent busy work.
Oh, and the short summary you asked for: multiple fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) per tower caused their annihilations on 9/11. The evidence of such seeps out of every official government report as well as the 9/11 Truth Movement (TM) efforts to keep public awareness on limited-hangout theories; and the evidence is most glaring in the blatant omissions, delayed & restricted access to site, delayed & shoddy measurement methodology, under-funded analysis, skewed scopes, slow-walked delivery, etc. and in the derivative works by learned 9/11TM scholars who accepted such papers unquestioned as accurate and complete.
To cut off a fruitless query, those who say "there was no measured radiation at the WTC" cannot prove it with analysis reports based on measurements taken promptly, systematically, thoroughly and tabulated in the report showing everything at or below expected background levels (see starting in section 8).
//
x347 George Secher : way off base
2017-12-21
George Secher
George Secher To me Maxwell your writing is not reference material at all for its premiss is way off base. Please address, (aside from your own view on what caused the disaster), my contention and then we can go from there. And by the way, because the mechanics are actually simple, I expect a simple reason why you don't agree or I will: A conclude that your wordiness is merely a form of subterfuge and B won't respond nor will anyone take your words seriously. Please use clear thinking practices and clear out the clutter of irrelevancies. "Minds of mush" will never achieve clarity.
George Secher
George Secher One more try Maxwell Bridges.
x348 Maxwell C. Bridges : will not disappoint you
2017-12-21
Dear Mr. Secher, I will not disappoint you, and consider this my last comment on this thread.
I just now copied your long posting into my editor, so that I can quote you accurately and address each and every point of contention in the coming days. It might take some time for me to compose my response(s) off-line, plus it is today the winter solstice. I humbly request your patience.
Before I start posting my comments about your premise, please offer me some guidance on your preferences.
[A] I address various points in your premise in a really long rebuttal posted at the top-level. You would reply to that posting creating a thread. Your replies each could also be very long, addressing my rebuttal points one by one.
[B] I make one top-level posting for each point of contention in your premise, a much smaller chunk of verbiage per comment, but a multiplication of top-level comments & threads involving me. Your replies to my individual rebuttal points would go under the respective comment, creating lots of threads.
Option [A] is better for serious and earnest discussion. Simply copy your debate opponent's comment and use it (off-line and in an editor) as the framework for a rational and reasoned rebuttal. It is also easier (a) to moderate and administer; (b) to skip over for all uninterested participants, (c)_ to read by latter-day lurker readers, because it is self contained. (d) Facebook does you the favor of compressing such hug comments into a few lines with "see more..." links, further uncluttering your discussion and thread.
Option [B] gives the top-level poster control of the thread. It can be considered spam getting so many comments all at once. It can be perceived as a shot-gun distraction tactic. Tag-teams would function better with this, each taking a thread and then forcing individual partipants (like me) to divide my attention. Mockery and such thrive, but not so much reasonable dialog.
I prefer option A. Keep me contained and behind "see more..." links. Time isn't of the essence.
Please let me know your recommendations.
//
x349 George Secher : not going to read all of this
2017-12-21
George Secher
George Secher First of all Maxwell, your reference to my post being long, it was as long as was necessary to put out the thought devoid of any holes in it but no longer than a books preface or introduction whereas you post was the length of a full medium sized book containing much ramble and unnecessary side conversations. This that I ask for is not that difficult of a request.Perhaps go over some of the other non grandstanding convesations in the group here and you'll get the idea. The chimney effect is a standard concept hundreds of years old that I am saying will apply to other applications such as the fires in the twin towers. If you are unable to confine your dialogue to that specific topic I will immediately delete it.
George Secher
George Secher I am not going to read all of this my friend. Same pattern again. There is an old adage that says: If if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it". I got only as far as noticing where you went off subject at the very start and then of course...See More
x350 Maxwell C. Bridges : foist "tl;dnr" onto you
2017-12-21
Shit, Mr. George Secher, someone could foist "tl;dnr" onto you as well. The details of Truth isn't easy and isn't always a tweet. If you aren't going to do the homework, you can't legitimately debunk it.
//
x351 George Secher : "Form" is the mother of all paradgimes
2017-12-21
George Secher
George Secher The actual mechanics involved as in all things were simple as always, you are entering complexity into it because you are coming from your own writing. If you want to address it please address it with out the addition of your complex explanation of another completely different view point. I believe I made a valid point in the post and even summarized it at the very bottom under (REVIEW - SUMMERY). Please address the concept of the chimney effect or there won't be anything for us to discuss. The collapse part 2. we can then discuss latter, (but not in tweet form). All the best. :)
George Secher
George Secher Got to thinking about it Maxwell Bridges, in all due respect, even in your last response here, after I explained about "keeping it simple and concise" you again demonstrated how you are allowing form to rule function, (form over function). "Form" is the mother of all paradgimes that keep us away from perceiving true reality. I would say this at this juncture; please wait till all the innicial conversations have come through, (I don't expect many from the Truthers because of the sound thought behind my premiss), in perhaps 2 to three weeks and then let's cap it off with yours so I can dig through its tangents. :)
x352 Maxwell C. Bridges : modified chimney is clever, it does not address all of the relevant evidence
2017-12-21
Dear Mr. Secher, Dr. David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
While your premise of the modified chimney is clever, it does not address all of the relevant evidence nor does it match observations, as will be discussed.
In your summary you write: "A modified chimney effect incorporated the entire interior of both of crash areas into a combustion chamber with ample flew air through the planes entry breaches elevating the ambient temperature high enough to bring steel beams and supports to a red hot condition causing both towers to decend at ever increasing speeds with enough force and inertia to cause all floors to fail."
Your reasoning continues that although jet fuel burns between 800-1,500 F in an open flame, the conditions in both towers was that of a modified chimey. "In the final analysis, the temperature in the towers combustion area, (entire floors), conservatively elevated to around 2,000 degrees F or more, especially in the fire's epicenter, (as opposed to the text book "conventional combustion" scenario of 800 to 1,500 F), hence only 20 minutes or so were required to bring down the towers."
Earlier in your premise you wrote: "Starting at 800 F [steel] already acquires a dull red hot condition and at 1500 it is relatively bright red to easily weaken a buildings structure enough to cause great damage and failure. There have been experimental demonstrations on the internet showing that at 1500 F steel can not even support a very light weight load. Much beyond 1500 F steel becomes very bright red and pliable so if fire hadn't already caused structural failure and collapse it would with certainty beyond that temperature range."
Too bad for your premise that the NIST reports say that (a) most of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fire-ball and (b) what remained was burned off in the first 10 minutes. Your premise with the jet fuel allegedly requires 20 minutes. Can fires fueled by office furnishings reach temperatures in a chimney required for steel weakening? Failed already, but let's set this aside.
The RJ Lee group analyzed the dust from the lobby of a neighboring building (Deutsches Bank), where they found 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3, p.28 in the 2003 Report). [Link to this report is in section 2 of my reference.] Section 13 "High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions" goes into details well worth reading including the very end with a table that lists "process and material" and the temperature that is required. To melt iron (spherule formation) would require 2,800 degrees F.
According to your premise, "the temperature in the towers combustion area, ... conservatively elevated to around 2,000 degrees F or more" with the 20 minutes of unburned jet fuel that the premise requires. You have no substantiation for this hypnotic suggestion, but that doesn't matter because it is already 800 degrees short of reaching the 2,800 degrees F that had to have been present to generate the RJ Lee group's evidence. Failed again, but's let keep going.
You wrote: "We must bear in mind that steel already melts at only 2,500 F. but long before that point it will have very little strength." For the sake of discussion, let's set aside the issue with not having 20 minutes of unburned jet fuel.
The destruction of the upper stories happened in a symmetric fashion (see Chandler video Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower), but your premise says there was an epicenter of fire. Localized weaking of structure would be asymmetric. Worse, it happened on 20 floors at about the same time. Failed again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
So that's three major failures or strikes against your premise already. Premise is out and down for the count. Got done quicker than I thought and with fewer comments.
Your lame calculations omit the tiny detail of how long a single piece of structural steel (like at the core) has to be kept at 1500 degrees F (in a controlled condition like at a foundary) to weaken. Such foundary conditions were not present for one, let alone the number of, simultaneous beam weakening required to match observation (recorded in video).
Fires in both towers were giving off black sooty smoke, which is an indication of an inefficient fire and blows smoke in the face of the chimney effect. WTC-2 had waning fires in a few small pockets that firefighters radioed in and were preparing to put down. WTC-2 was hit second, had weaker fires, but was destroyed first shortly after this radio report. Probably forced the perps to accelerate their plans beginning with WTC-2 instead of WTC-1.
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."
So exactly how does your "modified chimney" running on jet fumes and office furnishings achieve that? The roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton, meaning the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
To make this whole conversation worth my while as a sincere seeker of truth, I say that the first FGNW in the tower achieved the high temperatures and weakening of steel that Mr. Secher alludes to... suddenly, symmetrically, on all floors. The deep penetrating highly energetic neutrons created volume heating in the steel of the support core. It ablated the steel pans and trusses that held up the concrete floor into the iron spheres found in the dust; no prob reaching 2,800 degrees F. It caused rapid expansion of the concrete creating instant pulverization.
FGNW addresses more of the evidence.
//
x353 George Secher : left off portions of what I said
2017-12-21
George Secher
George Secher Maxwell Bridges, You left off portions of what I said and misinterpreted me. While you re read it I have things to due but as my message just above mine please reserve your response for after the less convoluted responses had come through in two or three weeks so I could devote more time to your tangents. When I get back I'll decide if I wish to respond now or hide it and get to it latter in a couple of weeks or so.
x354 Maxwell C. Bridges : being a weasel, all around
2017-12-21
You post something yesterday, and with the first brass-tacks discussion that points out four significant failings, you say: "maybe I'll respond now, or maybe in a couple weeks. Or maybe not at all by hiding it" (or exercising admin privileges of deleting it.)
That's being a weasel, all around. Bravo!
You posted it in two locations, meaning you were trying to get discussion (... err, distraction) on it. For you to then scramble away...
But I'm fine with that... assuming I don't catch you two-timing me by having discussions and flame wars with others here. As a chastity belt to keep you from cheating on me with others in this discussion (and because it resides in two places), you can turn off comments here until you're ready. I won't be holding my breath.
You're right; I left off a whole bunch of your verbiage, because they were cotton-candy (mostly air and tooth rott) to the argument already handily debunked. If your premise doesn't address the evidence or even the facts from NIST to whom all debunkers pray, then it is incomplete.
Sorry that you have to report to your superiors this stunning defeat. That'll hit your paycheck.
//
+++ E
x355 Rolando Fasetti : video of failed building demolitions
2017-12-21
Rolando Fasetti
Rolando Fasetti 8:41pm Dec 21
http://ytcropper.com/cropped/XH5a3c7eb78538f
{mcb: video of failed building demolitions.}
x356 Maxwell C. Bridges : #4 video was awesome. The building just kind of rolls over as a cohesive whole.
2017-12-21
Oh man, that #4 video was awesome, Mr. Rolando Fasetti! The building just kind of rolls over as a cohesive whole.
Well, when thinking 9/11, the upper stories of WTC-1 were rolling over and should have rolled off of the path of maximum resistance and out into thin air & the path of least resistance.
Instead, my speculation (as seen in the Chandler video) is that FGNW arrested the angular momentum of the whole by making it lots of small, tiny, pulverized pieces.
//
x357 George Secher : haven't broken your habits
2017-12-21
{mcb: Send via Messenger. Discussion forum no longer available to me.}
George Secher
George Secher You haven't broken your habits that I had warned you about. Nothing you write is relevant to the discussion of my post within your ego driven condescending form over function style. So I am blocking you, (I tried to just hide your comments but don't see the option for that any more.
Part 7: Miscellaneous Exchanges
x358 Maxwell C. Bridges : debunking Woodsian spew
Dear Mr. Gloux, (Part 1/2) I'll do you the favor of picking apart your comment line-by-line, even though you clearly haven't read my work despite having more than a couple years to do so. I'll be making references to specific sections from it.
You wrote: "Does a nuclear device of any type produce fire and heat?"
The highly energetic neutron of the FGNW penetrate materials deeply and instantly create volumne heating in larger materials like steel support beams, raising them to temperatures that weaken their strength. Thinner materials like the steel pans and support trusses for the concrete floors experienced ablating. The leading surface vaporized so quickly, it caused a shock wave into remainder of the (already hot) material that destroys it. Refer to section 14.
The implication of your question and one of the fallacies that Dr. Wood promotes is that the towers' destruction had no fire or heat. Video evidence shows a fireball buried in the structure upon initiation of annihilation of both towers. Under-rubble hot-spots burned for months, and fireman reported seeing molten metal running down the channels like lava. Refer to section 13.
The significant quantities of tiny iron spheres in the dust from Deutsches Bank lobby (collected by the RJ Lee group); the arches (or sags) and horseshoes promoted by Dr. Wood; the "steel doobies": these are more easily created with the high heat sources of a FGNW. Dr. Wood doesn't explain their creation with anything real-world or discussed in the literature.
You wrote: "Does a nuclear device of any type produce radiation contamination?"
The FGNW in question were fission-triggered-fusion. The vast majority of the radiation were the released and targeted highly energetic neutrons that do not linger. The other types of (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation from the FGNW were not produced in quantities that would linger in significant quantities beyond 48 hours. Coincidence that the earliest measurements for radiation (that we know of) happened more than two days after the event in a shoddy fashion?
The other USGS dust samples show correlated evidence of the fission triggers. Although tabulated in the tables, their correlation wasn't discussed in reports.
Furthermore, tritium was measured (albeit haphazardly and for a report with a serious scope limit) and is a fundamental component of all FGNW.
Refer to sections 9-13.
The implication of your question is that 9/11 at the WTC had no radiation contamination. You can produce no reports with prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements for such. Cameras and Geiger counters were forbidden from the area. You can't point to a single 9/11 report that didn't have issues, and this is after making the giant assumption that they were true and faithful in the measurements and reporting thereof.
The nature of the health ailments of the first responders is another indication of some radiation contamination, coupled with asbestos and other badness in the debris. Refer to section 20.
You wrote: "Does nuclear devices of any type burn paper or does it only turn re-enforced concrete full of rebar and six inch steel to dust but not burn the paper?"
The highly energetic neutrons from a FGNW would react more with materials having more complex atomic structures, such as metals. Think of it in terms of a microwave oven that doesn't heat the cardboard box of your Chinese leftovers, but would go bat-shit crazy if you left a metal spoon inside the box.
Because I have studied Dr. Wood, I know that the basis for your question are the scattered & unburned pieces of paper and unburned leaves in trees depicted in pictures of, say, West Broadway that also showed many torched vehicles. The FGNW answer is EMP slipping out through window slits and falling debris. High amplitude EMP, like your microwave, won't be affecting paper but will be affecting things with a more complex atomic structure, like the metal in cars. EMP creates Eddy currents in metals; high enough currents can heat the metal to a point where it burns off things attached to it with lower combustion points (like paint, plastic door handles, etc.)
Refer to sections 21-24.
You wrote: "What kind of kinetic energy can turn a building to dust and powder but not heave steal into all directions across Manhattan?"
This question about "kinetic energy" is a Woodsian distraction that has little to do with FGNW.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
You wrote: "Those Towers were the highest buildings yet there is NO steel on the roof of the lower buildings around the Towers across those narrow streets. Only aluminum siding."
The above statements are wrong. The wall assemblies are well represented, as are the steel from core columns. What is under-represented are the steel pans and truss supports for the concrete floors, and in general anything that one would normally expect to find in an office environment.
You wrote: "What burned all those cars but not the buildings they were parked in front of."
EMP from the FGNW slipping out through window slits. Refer to sections 21-24.
You wrote: "What caused all the Scot Air Pacs to explode on the fire trucks when there was no fire near them?"
First I've heard of this. Again, EMP.
You wrote: "If there is a type of nuclear power that can destroy buildings without prior setting on the walls with people occupying the building up to the time of destruction, then they should be able to do it with any building set for destruction."
First of all, (surviving) occupants of the buildings report on-going "construction" as well as extended power-down periods.
Secondly, 6-12 FGNW per tower isn't quite the logistics effort into demolition that conventional explosives would be. Further, they wouldn't have the traces of chemical explosives that bomb sniffing dogs would trigger on (although they had holiday in the several days leading up to 9/11).
You wrote: "Look at the series on TV when CD Inc prepares a building for destruction called "Blowdown". They have to gut the whole building then drill holes in the thick concrete set specific charges sufficient to cut the steel that has been cleaned off, but not so much that it would send it to adjacent buildings when exploding."
Doesn't apply. Mixing apples with oranges. The subject is FGNW that are in the category of DEW. They are not chemical explosives, and don't require the same preparation.
You wrote: "The glass on the buildings across the street were not broken with any explosive force, only falling debris broke some of the glass as it got closer to ground level."
Indeed. The destructive shockwaves from the FGNW were not primarily carried through air, as would be the case for chemical explosives (to achieve the observed pulverization). The deeply penetrating, highly energetic neutrons of the FGNW created the destructive shockwaves within the materials they were aimed at.
You wrote: "Your using the ridiculous dig "beams from space" is meant to ridicule. No-one said it was from space. Whatever the energy that was used, was able to core out Building 6 without causing any damage to the rest of the offices still with furniture in them. No fire or anything that would destroy by explosive force."
Dr. Wood is the one talking about getting "free energy", and part of her dangling innuendo was Hurricane Erin. How does that energy get to Earth to be destructive? Don't blame me if Dr. Wood purposely let her work be misconstrued as "beams from space."
If you want to talk about WTC-6, I'm okay with that. Dr. Wood does well in raising questions about WTC-6. What is Dr. Wood's explanation? Hint: She doesn't have one.
You wrote: "Whatever it was, it destroyed the eight stories right down to the main floor and stopped, leaving the exterior walls in place with part of the offices with their furnishings."
It was FGNW in the category of DEW. Aimed upwards, just like in the towers.
Know the limits of your source materials, my friend. Dr. Wood never claimed to be an end-station, never connected her dangling innuendo, never even powered such with anything real-world, and did shoddy research into nuclear topics.
You think you are objective? Are an earnest seeker of truth? Then prove it.
In my tenure in 9/11 truth, I've noticed a curious phenomenon. Wannabe debunkers of 9/11 nuclear involvement (be it outside or inside the 9/11 Truth Movement) always mal-frame the FGNW nature, making them to be too powerful, too much radiation, etc. such that they won't match the evidence. They do not ever go into FGNW except to mock it. Yeah, the supposed truthers who champion deep underground nukes? Disinformationalists trying to muddy the waters.
And then we have the Woodsian 9/11 truthers, a special breed of disinformation agents (or idiots). How so? Woodsian DEW practically screams for marriage with nuclear means particularly if the talk is about "free energy technology." Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) is the natural offspring of the marriage between Woodsian DEW and nuclear methods.
But can Woodsian followers ever recognize the limits of their matron saint's work? Can they prove their objectivity and open-mindedness by shifting their beliefs ever so slightly to FGNW, that can power their suspicions and generate the observed destruction? No, most can't, because they are paid to promote a disinformation agenda and limited hang-out. (Andrew Johnson, Atahan Ganduu, Emmanuel Goldstein, etc.)
Where are you, Mr. Gloux? Can you change your mind, modify your beliefs, shift your position?
// Part 2/2
x359 Roger Gloux : You want me to believe ...
2017-12-30
I'm not bad mouthing what you believe saying anything other then what the pictures reveal. The inside of Building 6 was destroyed, yet the remains are not touched by fire, kinetic energy like any kind of explosives because the offices still have their contents. If there was kinetic energy it would have blown those eight story walls outward, and it didn't.
The upper picture I put in has a blue dome of a building next to Building 6 and Tower 1 and there is no damage to it. Obviously nothing fell on it.
You want me to believe some kind of Fourth Generation Nuclear Device will explode and turn steel and concrete to dust but be selective by only taking out half a room and leave paper and desk in the other half.
You also want me to believe that in one location in Stairwell B of Tower 1, where 14 people lived without getting burned or blown apart while everything beside them and above them disappeared. There isn't any radiation yet somehow an Atomic "fusion" (instead of fission) weapon in very small forms can explode in such a fashion without leaving radiation.
What's the smallest device of such a thing without radiation?
On top of that.... "no fire".
On top of that you say there is ample steel on the ground and on top of the buildings.
You said.... "It was FGNW in the category of DEW. Aimed upwards, just like in the towers."
The Towers came apart from the top downward not from the bottom and destroyed each floor in 1/10th of a second without making explosive sounds.
In this photo Building 4 looks like a knife cut it down to the main floor and half of it disappeared. The only steel there is the outside facade of one of the towers and note it did't go across the street. Not only that, the lights are ON, under the building in the delivery garage. The steel didn't go underground to account for two Towers 110 stories high.....
x360 Maxwell C. Bridges : alignment of FGNW with Woodsian DEW
Dear Mr. Gloux, you wrote: "You want me to believe some kind of Fourth Generation Nuclear Device will explode and turn steel and concrete to dust but be selective by only taking out half a room and leave paper and desk in the other half."
No, I want you to believe that an ignited FGNW will direct its highly energetic neutrons at material in a targeted fashion. Some of the material deeply penetrated by the neutrons ablates, gets vaporized. Shock waves created deep within materials tears them apart (like an egg in a microwave). Other material suffer volume heating. If not targeted -- like the exterior walls --, it gets selectively spared.
Dr. Wood promotes DEW. FGNW takes it to the next level by being nuclear DEW.
You wrote: "You also want me to believe that in one location in Stairwell B of Tower 1, where 14 people lived without getting burned or blown apart while everything beside them and above them disappeared."
The reason for their survival may have been because of a malfunctioning FGNW. I believe such were the cause of the under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months.
You wrote: "There isn't any radiation yet somehow an Atomic "fusion" (instead of fission) weapon in very small forms can explode in such a fashion without leaving radiation."
No, I want you to believe that the FGNW were low radiation devices, not "no radiation devices." Closer inspection of the reports that try to give the impression of "no radiation" were such shoddy efforts, you could drive a semi-truck with FGNW through their holes. [If you persist with the "no radiation at the WTC" claim, I'll turn this discussion around and make you prove that claim. For reasons already given, you'll discover that to be fruitless busy work.] Even with their shoddiness, traces of nuclear involvement slip out of all of them.
You write: "On top of that.... 'no fire.'"
WTC-6 had fires. If you ablate some material like steel, its fragments would be hot enough to burn other things. The issues are distances that could serve to cool super hot particles before they ignited things.
You wrote: "On top of that you say there is ample steel on the ground and on top of the buildings."
This was a mistake; I'm sorry. I meant to say that the debris pile of the towers had ample evidence of the wall assemblies and core columns. I did not mean to write or imply that the crater of WTC-6 and WTC-5 had ample evidence of material coming from the towers.
I wrote: "It was FGNW in the category of DEW. Aimed upwards, just like in the towers."
You wrote: "The Towers came apart from the top downward not from the bottom and destroyed each floor in 1/10th of a second without making explosive sounds."
True for both statements. What I meant was that the top-most FGNW in the towers was placed, say, about impact level. It was aimed upwards to decimate the upper stories. Then a FGNW some 20 stories below that went off, etc. Destruction happened top-down, yet the devices themselves (just like at the WTC-6) were aimed upwards.
And yes, without making explosive sounds comparable to chemical explosives.
When conventional chemical explosives (shaped-charges) are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- can violent destroy other structure and content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from expectations about chemical explosives.
The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud at its ignition point, because neutron emission is a different process compared to chemical reactions, is heating the air, but isn't generating massive changes in air pressure. Destroying shock waves originating in the materials from penetrating highly energetic neutrons would have a vastly different audio signature than shock waves transmitted through air and able to achieve the same destruction
FGNW are not kinetic energy weapons.
Bottom-line, FGNW are in the category of weapons labeled as DEW, explain the evidence, and should be where you take your research from Dr. Wood's effort. It is a natural extension and easy hop in understanding to make.
[If not FGNW, then what? Dr. Wood's work by itself ain't an end-station. If anything, by itself it is a cul-de-sac and limited hangout designed to be debunked (by not being specific or conclusive enough) and to besmirch the evidence of 9/11 having nuclear components.]
//
x361 Maxwell C. Bridges : fostering rational discussion
2013-12-31
Dear Mr. Gloux, Thank you for the moments you take to assume my FGNW premise and to foster rational discussion.
You asked, how is FGNW packaged and how big is it?
Here allow me to be a bit of a weasel, because I by no means can give you exact dimensions as if I had access to one through employment. Were I in any way associated with the nuclear weapons industry, I could find myself facing charges of treason for revealing details and national secrets. "Whew", then that I'm not!
I can only provide educated speculation based on data points that leaked into the public domain. I call your attention to Section 14, where Dr. Gsponer suggests: "A FGND using only 25 mg of deuterium-tritium (DT) could have a 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency." 25 mg of most things isn't very big in 3D space.
Section 16 is also of interest, because it shows a picture of a Davey Crockett nuke and documents the W-54. The W54 was a micro-nuke that weighed 51 pounds and could be fired from a slightly modified ordinary bazooka. Different versions of the W54 ranged from .01 kt to 1 kt yield.
Let's look at the picture of the Davey Crocket, get rid of the rocket stages, and have just the warhead portion. Rough guess is a cylinder 3 ft long and 2 ft circumference. This is 1960's packaging, but let's assume this is the worst case for FGNW and its tiny 25 mg of DT. You could find any number of ruses to get 12 (or more) of these in each building of the WTC, like in the boxes carried on the dolly pushed by the guy who re-stocks all of the pop & candy machines. I've read speculation that suggest some FGNW could be softball size. This is underscored by Hollywood movies having military advisors (e.g., permission from the Department of Defense) to help achieve technical accuracy. [The movies do a lot of conditioning of the public's mind.]
//
x362 Roger Gloux : dust cooler then the ambient temperature
2017-12-31
Maxwell Bridges So, say it is a softball size, how many per floor is needed to make steel and concrete turn to dust at 1/10th of a second per floor, but not send any steel across the street on top of all those domed buildings? Only two places have the outside facade steel hitting buildings but not on top of them. That means no interior big heavy steel that was covered by re-enforced concrete reached the other side of the street. In fact there was hardly any in the footprint of the buildings.
Remember the dust was cooler then the ambient air of the day. Cold "fusion" means not as much heat as "fission", so if there is heat, why then was the dust cooler then the ambient temperature?
I'm trying to visualize how heavy steel is torn apart on the molecular level. Large chunks were falling but never reached the ground because they were turned to dust as they fell. The only thing that fell to the street at the front doors of Building 1 was aluminum siding. Why did aluminum survive but not the heavy steel?
OH yeah..... regarding the Scott Pacs in the fire trucks, you said you didn't know about that.
If you still have "the book", look at page 110. If it was EMP, where did it come from because the buildings had already been destroyed? Cars, buses and firetrucks were also exploding after the event happened. Remember, it only took nine to eleven seconds to destroy the Towers but cars were still exploding after, especially one row in the Parking lot. And the cars that had aluminum blocks were destroyed more then the cars that had iron engines blocks. Why did this selecting occurrence happen?
x363 Maxwell C. Bridges : defending Woodsian innuendo
2017-12-31
Dear Mr. Gloux, I fear you are not being sincere, and are putting too much effort into defending Woodsian innuendo.
Case in point, I disagree with your assessment: "Large chunks were falling but never reached the ground because they were turned to dust as they fell." Yes, large chucks fell and seemed to be steaming, smoking, trailing dust. It wasn't the wall assemblies coming apart in the dust; it was things attached to them -- like asbestos, paint, drywall, etc.
Look at the debris piles depicted in Dr. Wood's book. The wall assemblies and even core columns are well represented. They weren't "dustified."
What is under-represented in the pile are the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors. These were ablated: vaporized immediately. Probably accounted for the tiny iron spheres measured in large quantities in the dust (from the lobby the Deutsches Bank.) The deeply penetrating neutrons heated the concrete so fast, its rapid expansion blew it apart into concrete dust.
Here is an important distinction of one FGNW with 25 mg DT and a 1 ton yield. 80% of that yield was the highly energetic neutrons. Although the neutrons traveled through the air, structure, and content, it wasn't as if a destructive shock wave of neutrons was creating massive changes in air pressure to destroy content. No. The neutrons deposit massive amounts of energy deep within materials instantly. Once it was inside the material, then the material reacted in some way.
Only 20% of the 1 ton yield was in an actual blast wave, heat wave, and EMP. Sufficient to throw wall assemblies laterally and eject content, but insufficient (from its placement and alignment) to throw wall assemblies to the domed buildings.
I have research cold-fusion. While a real concept, it was not and is not today operational, let alone at the scale required for 9/11. Don't be giving nuclear devices such a quick brush-off, particularly FGNW.
You wrote: "the dust was cooler then the ambient air of the day." I ask for substantiation. I disagree, although my disagreement isn't saying the dust was super hot either. I believe that when it initially by the neutrons and separated from its former cohesive self, it was hot. But now having more surface area, it could cool off. Ambient air of the day was elevated by the event. First responders report being enveloped by sudden heat, or being blown down the street by a heat way.
I disagree with your statement: "Why did aluminum survive but not the heavy steel? The only thing that fell to the street at the front doors of Building 1 was aluminum siding."
You're a Woodsian disciple, so I don't need to be lecturing you on the significance of directed energy weapons. What were the FGNW aimed at and what were they not? Answers your question.
Thanks for the reference to page 110 and the Scott cylinders. I could see EMP causing that effect. Generated Eddy currents in the container heated the container and subsequently the gaseous content. Gaseous content expands causing an over pressure situation and safety value release. When they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".
Same situation with the cars, buses, and firetrucks. EMP hitting even a localized area can cause sufficiently large Eddy currents to heat that metal to a level that causes things with a lower combustion point (e.g., paint, seals, plastic handles) touching the metal to burn. Once a vehicle is on fire, volitile things (like fuel) explode.
I have seen nothing along the lines: "cars that had aluminum blocks were destroyed more then the cars that had iron engines blocks." Cars on the road in 2001, what is the ratio of aluminum blocks versus iron block? What was the ratio of such blocks in the parking lot? Pretty important contextual information needed to understand the statistic you present.
Here's an interesting video I just learned about. Whereas I don't agree that it was one device aimed upward, it does document design elements of the device(s).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jswvSrNtdc
//
x364 Roger Gloux : (Woodsian) is the most accurate of all the groups
2017-12-31
Maxwell Bridges your right, I think Dr. Wood (Woodsian) is the most accurate of all the groups. BUT... I still look at other points of view, such as yours.
You said..... "Yes, large chucks fell and seemed to be steaming, smoking, trailing dust. It wasn't the wall assemblies coming apart in the dust; it was things attached to them -- like asbestos, paint, drywall, etc. "
There wasn't any fire, so it wasn't smoking. All there is , is steel studs with drywall attached to it, concrete with rebar and heavy steel. Those big chunks never reached the ground because every street was photographed the very same day. It definitely was trailing dust, so what was it that made it turn to dust. If there was baseball size cold fusion in the building, this is steel and whatever was on it turning to dust outside of the building and it didn't reach the ground as you can see it disappears into dust.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyM9y2xo4RQ
That steel and the drywall wasn't exploding, it was turning to dust and disappeared. There wasn't that much steel on the ground. I used to haul that stuff on flat decks and it is very heavy and very hard. I also used to apply drywall in skyscrapers and there isn't very much in there, (except furniture and wooden doors) that can burn. What we see is steel turning to dust outside the building and virtually none of the big steel hit the street.
Explosives don't work like that.
You said.... "Look at the debris piles depicted in Dr. Wood's book. The wall assemblies and even core columns are well represented. They weren't "dustified."
Your looking at Building 7 which wasn't totally "dustified. Show me where in the two Towers you see drywall. There is nothing in the street or in the footprint except in Stairwell B. None on the steel or the Lobby that is sticking out.
You said.... "Gaseous content expands causing an over pressure situation and safety value release. When they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".
Th Fireman said "sssssss boom" repeatedly. Oxygen tank used in welding will do that in a fire. The thing is the ambulance truck was not on fire. And the Towers were already gone. so what caused the EMP? Fuel tanks will explode as well but they have a vent to let the gases escape if expanded by heat, same with propane tanks on a pickup. When you burn out a scrap car, all you need is a cup of gas on the seat and it will burn but not the gas tank nor the tires. The only way tires will burn is if there is gas on the road,
You said.... "I have seen nothing along the lines: "cars that had aluminum blocks were destroyed more then the cars that had iron engines blocks." Cars on the road in 2001, what is the ratio of aluminum blocks versus iron block? What was the ratio of such blocks in the parking lot?"
Look at pages 224-228, the destroyed (toasted) cars in these pictures, 2 have engine blocks "eaten" out. Also one firetruck had it's engine, rad and grill gone but the rest of the truck was OK. The same with several other vehicles and others were not affected in this fashion.
When you add all of these things together, it definitely wasn't controlled demolition or collapse because it turned to dust one floor at a time from the top down.
If there was thousands of nuclear devises in those buildings, how did they manage to set them of at 1/10th of a second per floor with low EMP, but sufficiently strong enough to turn steel into dust, and then when it is over, having cars up and down the street starting on fire by EMP with nothing to produce it.
The video you produced, the guy says planes started it all when none were used. He uses the word "collapse" when that really didn't happen. and you can't turn it up and down because the whole building was destroyed in 9 seconds.
Also there wans't any pyroclastic cloud. because the dust was not hot. Everyone inside the dust cloud said it was cooler then the ambient temperature.
It really don't fit.
Also, since you have the book did you actually read it? Just the quotes from the people who went through it, clinches it.
No comments:
Post a Comment