The following discussions happened over a two year period primarily on Facebook, but also in other discussion forums and by e-mail. They were attempts by me to have rational discussions about 9/11 fourth generation nuclear devices, and tangentially about nano-thermite and about the "No Planes Theory" (NPT).
In most cases, my discussion partners resembled what a conspiracy theorist would expect as boots-to-the-ground infiltration of on-line forums, and controlling the message. Some are classic disinformation, defended poorly, unwilling to acknowledge weaknesses in premise, exhibiting in cases bot-tells in the engagement.
These discussions add more data points to a particular trend line in the 9/11 realm. The trend line dictates that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into nuclear methods must be shutdown.
Expand All Chapters / Hide All Chapters
Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections
Chapter 3: FGNW Discussions with David Chandler
I have a history with Mr. David Chandler. After Dr. Judy Wood's book came out, I was intrigued by the information. It was curious, however, why no one from the established 9/11 Truth Movement or AE9/11Truth would legitimately validate it or debunk it. At one point, I was in correspondence with Mr. Chandler and, with his approval, purchased Dr. Wood's book and had it sent to him for review: the good, the bad, the ugly.
To cut that story short, he never did thoroughly review it or discuss with depth any errors. Eventually in my studying of her book, I discovered the deceit and can debunk it legitimately. Alas, it does have nuggets of truth, however, that other concensus 9/11 Truth cannot address, which is why her work is given such the "non-treatment" and avoidance. Dr. Wood's book is a great collection of evidence that 9/11 had nuclear components.
At any rate, I originally came to Mr. Chandler as a Woodsian DEWer. My understanding and beliefs changed with further study and analysis. FGNW (fourth generation nuclear devices) are all in the category of DEW.
x38 Maxwell C. Bridges : Flat-Earth: training for how to disrupt discussions
Dear Mr. David Chandler, My experience with flat-earthers is much like yours. Yes, it appeared to be training for how to disrupt discussions. Has another element of guilt-by-association, in that they'll be vocal members of other groups researching various conspiracies but will argue flat-earth so poorly, it'll call into question the legitimacy of the other groups.
You may be making too many assumptions about any "Marc Ruff" and "Adam Ruff" correlations. I only know the latter, and I found him to be a blow-hard braggard and MeToo on 9/11 on and off Truth & Shadows (soon to make a comeback), but Mr. Ruff did not have enough intellectual chops or even personal fortitude to go into details. He'd play games and run out the clock.. I'm not at all proud of myself that I completely discredited his credibility, but I wasn't the one be called out to defend unsubstantiated bragging. He said he could debunk Dr. Wood and nukes, so I was holding his feet to the fire.
In case you were interested, I did what you & he couldn't: I debunk Dr. Wood legitimately. Could have been the assessment you made with the copy I gave you. Her work drops a lot of dangling innuendo, fails to connect dots, draws no conclusions, and did really shitty research into the state of nuclear developments. Dr. Wood's work was never meant as an end-station, which is ironically how die-hard Woodsian followers get tripped up. They don't acknowledge the deficiencies and incompleteness of the work necessitating looking for next-level-Woodsian-DEW, and then they (purposely) let the work be malframed into "DEW from space".
Pay attention, because this accusation of "shitty research into the state of nuclear developments" applies to Dr. Jones, A&E9/11 Truth, and ~YOU~, Mr. David Chandler. For shame, for shame. I know your Physics degree gave you enough background to understand FGNW. Pity you didn't apply yourself.
Still not too late for you to do some real research into the nuclear 9/11 fingerprints and what FGNW can accomplish, being in the DEW classification, easily powered, and next-level Wood. (Hint: google Dr. Andre Gsponer who'd been writing about FGNW in the decade prior to Dr. Jones' "reputiation of 9/11 nukes" or Dr. Wood's tome of nuclear evidence.)
I'll not distract this discussion further. You know how to get to an appropriate entry on my blog to discuss / debunk my FGNW premise, or to my Facebook wall and relevant postings there. If you don't spot the link in the discussions, I'll be happy to post you a link to my raw research into 9/11 DEW and nukes.
//
x39 EL Quesnell : aren't you full of yourself!
2018-12-31
I do not, could not speak for David Chandler, but oh my, aren't you full of yourself! How about the simple observation that there must have been something other than structural collapse due to fire in play? This alone disputes the official account. "Shame"? Seriously?
x40 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ain't the worst character trait to exhibit
2018-12-31
Dear Señor EL Quesnell, Sure, I'll cop a plea to your accusation of me being full of myself! Woo-hoo! Ain't the worst character trait to exhibit... particularly if I am right.
I've got two blog postings that would be of interest. I've provided the link only to the one from 2016 (but you'll easily be able to find the more recent one from Feb 2018). I apologize for the overlap between the two. I included the first one because right out of the gate I slaughter the nano-thermite sacred cow (limited hang-out).
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Again, I encourage you to be courteous to this discussion here by taking me to task on a posting on my Facebook wall or my blog.
And let the fact that I have had a blog documenting my zig-zag course to 9/11 Truth since 2010 (and a website before that too) be an indication of my focus and persistence.
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x41 Maxwell C. Bridges : if you don't address all the evidence, you'll be duped again and again
2018-12-31
Dear Señor EL Quesnell, sorry for this second comment so soon. This is in reference to your comment: "How about the simple observation that there must have been something other than structural collapse due to fire in play?"
Except that if you don't address all the evidence and try to get at the cause, you'll be duped again and again. Face it. The PTB scheduled military exercises to distract and outsourced to Israel the boots-to-the-ground of how we nuked ourselves and then went through all manner of subterfuge and deceit to the point of damaging science institutions to cover for it with a complicit media.
+++ quote from me
Evidence of "nuclear anything" has about the same PR stigma as a "toxic waste dump": nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitants and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that "nuclear something" was involved. Even though the spectrum of "nuclear somethings" is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The "Field of Dreams" message to Silverstein paraphrased: "If you re-build it, ain't nobody gonna come."
All over the internet, intelligent thinkers offer hints at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world. If any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that nuclear mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe. And so it was.
//
x42 David Chandler : dumped your load of DEW garbage
2018-12-31
Maxwell Bridges EL Quesnell may not be able to speak for me but I can. You kept it civil and even laudatory right up until you dumped your load of DEW garbage at my doorstep again. Didn't you get the message before that I don't buy what you're selling, and that doesn't make my rejection of Judy Wood's theories shameful. Go away. You got my response before, so quit harassing me with it again. Brown nosing doesn't get you anywhere.
x43 EL Quesnell, Will Small : nukers only present conjectures
2018-12-31
EL Quesnell
EL Quesnell Maxwell Bridges thank you for a very thoughtful, creative and entertaining response. With respect, I must however still disagree: Observance of anything close to free fall collapse is enough to dismiss the official account toward an indictment. You have skipped too far ahead and have no way of gaining evidence from primary sources toward your theory.
Will Small EL Quesnell theories require workable hypothesis, nukers only present conjectures of micro and low radiation nukes and misunderstandings of tiny trace elements and compounds found. WTC dust contained thousands of toxins easily capable of diseases that resulted.
x44 Maxwell C. Bridges : if I could make a case for 9/11 nukes, more power to me and good luck in the endeavor
2018-12-31
Dear Mr. David Chandler, I am not peddling Woodsian DEW. I went through her work and gathered my nuggets of truth to get me to my nuclear hobby-horse of Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
You explicitly told me that if I could make a case for 9/11 nukes -- because it was allegedly beyond your skill set in physics --, more power to me and good luck in the endeavor.
So I did that. As a physics teacher, there's nothing in the FGNW premise that is beyond your education.
I couldn't get you to objectively review all of Dr. Wood's work and to at least study the evidence (that NT doesn't easily explain). Therefore, I doubt you'll go into my derivative but deviant work about FGNW.
But one of my super-powers is being naive and trusting, so I maintain the hope that you aren't following an agenda and will give my work an objective review. In the end if I convince you, you can offer public apologies that based on new evidence you come to new conclusions about the mechanisms of WTC destruction. (Or rather, that NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction, if involved at all.)
If my work doesn't convince you, then please tell me where my premise errors so that it can be improved and we can become better people.
Again, it isn't my intention to distract from your Flat-Earth thread. Feel free to critique me on relevant postings on my Facebook wall or even the blog itself.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
You positioned yourself to be a leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and you mouthed the words that you would follow truth where ever it leads you. The evidence of 9/11 being nuclear leaks out all over, with the latest nugget being "camera scintillation" (a section on its own in the above work.)
Time for an honest and objective discussion... section by section.
Please, please, please. You've been avoiding this for too long, and is one of the dings to your reputation.
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
x45 Maxwell C. Bridges : this half-way effort is designed to keep understanding in inapplicable cul-de-sacs
2018-12-31
Dear Mr. Will Small and Sr. El Quesnell, I don't discount your impression of "nukers" and their "conjectures", because just like many corners of the 9/11 TM, they were infiltrated with agents. This is why THEY speculate about deep underground nukes and frame them inappropriately in terms of yield. Took me awhile before I could debunk them via their malframing.
But I am not THEY. I've been around the 9/11 block many times, and even had to recant views previously held when new evidence or analysis presented itself. I've done the research, and even provided links to the RAW efforts to give those wanting to follow & vet or debunk my substantiation a leg up and head start.
I do agree that under normal circumstances, "Observance of anything close to free fall collapse is enough to dismiss the official account toward an indictment."
But this half-way effort is designed to keep understanding in inapplicable cul-de-sacs and limited hang-outs. The evidence of the true mechanisms of destruction is rather copious to anyone with eyes open and connecting the dots. If presented, it will get convictions, because the set of culprits becomes much smaller when FGNW are faithfully considered.
My work is referenced, but the one you can look up now on your own with no interference from my work is "Dr. Andre Gsponer" and his many years writing about the FGNW subject.
Agreed, that even Dr. Gsponer is somewhat conjecture (and he hasn't written anything about 9/11 to my knowledge), but it comes from someone with deeper nuclear contacts and no axe to grind.
To get the yea or nay from anyone involved in the nitty-gritty of nuclear development, you would put them in violation of non-disclosure agreements and even treason. Too many data points leak out all over (see my works) that expose the validity of FGNW in operation, even if no one with a PhD in Physics can publicly say so. But those of us who studied some physics can connect the dots.
Please, objectively review my work(s) and tell me where I error. I don't like being the sole duped useful idiot on this subject, so will readily concede when the pillars of my 9/11 FGNW understanding are knocked out one by one. The only danger to you is your understanding of mechanisms, when too many pillars remain fixed that nano-thermite can't address.
//
x46 Maxwell C. Bridges : Be careful of your broad brush
Dear Mr. Price,
Be careful of your broad brush when you go dismissing certain theories as not being applicable.
The USGS analysis of the dusts lists in its data tables the presence of Uranium and its decay elements. They discuss other toxic elements, but not these. However, these are finger-prints for fusion.
And then we have the tritium report with stilted goals from the onset (e.g., to attribute measured tritium to building content) and no need for thorough authoritative measurements. It redefined “trace” to be 55 times greater than it was. Tritium is a component in all Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), many of which are descendants of the infamous “neutron bomb”.
And then we have the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust of the lobby of a neighboring building (to name one analysis/report). A&E9/11Truth suggests nano-thermite created these, but the quantities are obscene even before considering the quantities needed to maintain under-rubble hot-spots and would have been unspent from the initial pulverizing task.
Fission-triggered fusion were the FGNW devices. The yield was already tactical and sub-kiloton per device (with multiple devices per tower). However, 80% of the yield was highly energetic neutrons (that don’t linger) but that do penetrate content delivering high amounts of energy deep within the atomic structure of things it hits. The 20% remaining of the yield was in classical heat wave, blast wave, and EMP — greatly muted.
Most of the time when nuclear device are discussed with regards to 9/11, they are framed purposely wrong and built on the nuclear fears instilled and hyped by media for over half a century. They are framed as “large, single devices and planted deep under ground” and therefore can’t even address the evidence.
Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood both did very crappy research into 9/11 nuclear devices. I learned this doing my own research with a focus of what was known to be the state in 2001. How could they both have missed Dr. Andre Gsponer who had been writing authoritatively about FGNW for more than a decade before either Dr. Jones or Dr. Wood penned their shoddy and incomplete dismissive efforts.
Rather than bore readers here, more details at:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x47 Maxwell C. Bridges : Don't fall for the fallacy
Don't fall for the fallacy that it was "either (US government) insiders or (Arab/Israeli) outsiders." It was both. On the inside front, the multiple distracting war games that were in play on the day is exhibit A; Israeli's didn't plan or control them although may have planned to take advantage of them. Israeli Mossad is the logical boots-to-the-ground outsourcing agency to give US insiders plausible deniability.
The article refers to Ace Baker. All disinformation has a solid foundation of truth before it leads you astray. Our job is to mine those disinformation sources for the still valid nuggets of truth. I was duped by September Clues, NPT, etc. for several years. Wouldn't be surprised if they themselves weren't Mossad actions aimed at undermining 9/11 Truth.
I consider Mr. Baker's efforts disinformation, mostly because ample evidence exists that real planes were involved at the WTC: 10 separate instances of pieces of landing gear landing outside the towers; an engine that went through a corner, hit a building, and landed at church & murray.
Also because when you study closely the physics of the towers and the planes, NPT requires assumptions that don't hold true. For example, the implication is made that the tower's resistance to an incoming aircraft is constant. No; once the wall assemblies are breached -- by connecting bolts shearing, by assemblies being pushed out of the way, by hollow box columns of the assemblies getting bent & broken -- comparatively little building structure or content would be present to prevent further forward penetration of the fuselage.
Another example are the wings and tail that many claim "should have bounced off of the towers." The velocity-squared term in the energy equation at high velocities changes the outcomes from expectations of low-velocity crashes. Namely, the energy is so great, that the materials of the wings themselves shatter locally (while also damaging the hollow box columns of the wall assemblies.) The wings would not act as cohesive wholes and bounce. As for the tail, the fuselage had already plowed a path for it to enter.
A final example, NPTers often talk about the plane traveling its own length in the same number of frames whether traveling through air or entering the towers. This is perfectly true, but is used purposely incorrectly. Let's ignore tolerances on starting/ending points for measuring the plane's travel using pixels of a video taken from a distance. Owing to the relatively slow frame rate (24 frames/second) of the recording device, a range of (high) velocities could satisfy the equation and give the same number of frames. In other words, this form of digital error (e.g., converting to individual frames at 24 frames/second) would mask some of the deceleration. Yet NPTers claim there was none.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html
//
Chapter 4: FGNW Discussions with Roger Gloux & Israel
After my exile from Truth & Shadows, Mr. Roger Gloux began posting in favor of Woodsian DEW there. I eventually was able to have a conversation with him in the comments under my FGNW Prima Facie Case and then 10 months later in Facebook, re-purposed here.
Like many Woodsian DEW supporters, his defense of her work was weak and stilted. Worse, many of his efforts is like a "Mossad-bot".
x49 Roger Gloux : make sure we blame Israel
2018-02-22
2018-02-22
Roger Gloux said...
Interesting perspective and let's make sure we blame Israel.
I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book.
Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten.
Why didn't the paper burn?
There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out.
What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?
What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?
What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?
What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?
Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that.
I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book.
Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk.
x50 Maxwell Bridges : cranking another spin on a Woodsian carousel
2018-02-22
Dear Mr. Gloux,
Got part way through the response below when I received the distinct impression that you are cranking another spin on a Woodsian carousel. You asked similar questions on FaceBook that I answered and have since re-purposed in Part 7: Miscellaneous Exchanges.
You wrote: "I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book. ... I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book."
Nice try at shifting the discussion to Dr. Wood's book, but I'll remind you that the topic is FGNW.
You complain that I supposedly didn't read her book just because I didn't recall certain specific things mentioned only once (e.g., Scott Paks)? Well, I'll see your unfounded complaint and raise you two founded complaints against you: (1) you didn't understand Dr. Wood's book, and (2) you didn't read thoroughly the above premise.
Regarding #1 and your poor reading comprehension: Dr. Wood drops a lot of dangling innuendo, but she does not connect dots or draw conclusions. She never claimed to be an end-station, and her book proves that. She doesn't describe the devices -- whether space-based or earth bound --, nor does she power it with anything real-world. Her valued contribution to 9/11 lore is in collecting together a good portion of the evidence that 9/11 at the WTC was nuclear and raises important questions. She accepted unquestioned and unchallenged several government reports that then skew her analysis. Her book carries over several errors from her website that should have been corrected. In at least one case (police car 2345 or whatever number it was), such an error has her propose gross misinformation by stating the device torched cars at the bridge; the police car was torched elsewhere and towed to the bridge. She doesn't address valid criticism of her web pages that she re-purposed in her book. She exposes various valid research branches (such as soil radiation mitigation techniques), and then stops short. She did very shoddy research into nuclear considerations, as evidence by (a) the cold fusion circus and (b) completely omitting fourth generation nuclear devices. How could she not have found Dr. Andre Gsponer's efforts if she was sincere in her nuclear research?
I'll go back to Dr. Wood's work not being an end-station. She wrote: "The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you." By that she mean, "Look at her collected evidence, but don't be distracted from what she is telling you."
Regarding #2, FGNW completes Dr. Wood's work. It stands on her shoulders and takes it to the next level. It provides answers to all of your nigly questions. Did you even note what content came from Dr. Wood's work?
At this point, it is best to go through each paragraph of your comment one by one:
"Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten. Why didn't the paper burn?"
Had you read my premise and understood it, it would be clear why paper didn't (seem to) burn. The tactical FGNW deployed already were designed sub-kiloton, but that is its total nuclear output. It is further subdivided into upwards of 80% of the energy being highly energetic neutrons. The remaining 20% of the aleady sub-kiloton device were heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Things local to the ignition point could have been torched.
What effect would highly energetic neutrons have on paper? Very little. Not a significant enough atomic structure for paper to be effected. What happens to your cardboard Chinese take-out box when you put it into the microwave?
Concrete on the other hand? Its residual water would have expanded so rapidly into steam, the rest of the concrete was blown apart. Metal in the path of the energy beam would have faired different. Thick metal receiving the highly energetic neutrons could have exhibited instantly volume heating end-to-end, resulting in arches, horseshoes, and steel-doobies. Thin metal, like the pans and trusses that held the concrete, would have ablated.
Same for thin metal in filing cabinets, which among other office furnishings were grossly under-represented in the debris file: the thin metal in the FGNW beam was ablated. The papers enclosed by the cabinets? Some burned, but a good portion wasn't but was free to get blown around.
You wrote:
"There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out."
The survivors did experience heat, and rather suddenly and acutely. What they didn't experience were flames or lots of smoke from a fire. They did hear explosions but not explosives.
FGNW is in the category of DEW and explains this (a) as the survivors not being in a section that was directly targeted by the FGNW output and/or (b) a fizzling or failed FGNW.
You wrote:
"What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?"
Answered already. It should be pointed out from page 110, when they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".
You wrote:
What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?
Ho-hum, Mr. Gloux. Did you not read "6. EMP and Vehicle Damage" above in the article under which you comment? For shame, for shame!
You wrote:
"What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?"
I do not know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?
Be that as it may, how does Dr. Wood explain it? Probably applies to FGNW, too, because FGNW are the devices that Dr. Wood alludes to but doesn't ever mention.
Because I don't know exactly what you are referring to, I'm making another wild-ass speculation. The outside steel wall assemblies acted up to a point as a Faraday cage to keep contained neutron emission and EMP among other badness. But there were window slits. There were gaps in the debris falling. Through the jostling of the destruction, a misaligned FGNW could have had parts of its output escape. Just as the neutron output cones decimated concrete in the struction, they could have put holes in sidewalks.
You wrote:
"What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?"
Again, I don't know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?
You wrote:
"Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that."
At this point, I suspect you are bot, Mr. Glous, or an idiot Woodsian supporter copying & pasting nonsense, but in any event is now definitely proven to not have read the article above. FGNW explain it. Look at Section 3, "Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11." Nowhere in the premise above does it talk about FGNW as being (chemical-based) explosives.
You wrote:
"Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk."
No, Mr. Gloux. ~You~ explain why there is a cirlce in the sidewalk after first giving me some context and reference locations.
And just about anything you could dig up from Dr. Wood's work to explain it, I'll probably turn around and say "FGNW can do that too, only better."
// mcb
x51 Roger Gloux : WTF are you rabbit-ing about?
2018-11-22
2018-11-22
Maxwell Bridges You said.... "WTF are you rabbit-ing about?"
I just put together all the things you have said and this is your response. Even you thinks it's ridiculous.
I know what "Zion" is and where it is located. I'm still waiting for you to give me a simple explanation and so far all your doing is trying to reverse it by saying "you don't know".
You said.... " Evidently you don't know what Zionism is, or Mossad, or even what Israel does, as you paint a pretty picture about a religion and those faithful to it."
You can use your own words, please explain. You have the floor.
You said.... "No, you don't know what I'm saying. The 9/11 "Jewish art students"? Proven Mossad agents. "
OK..... WHY is this important?
You said.... "Your 9/11 research only goes to Dr. Wood, whose work has plenty of weaknesses that you fail to acknowledge. Why?"
I read the Book several times because it covers every point. You may own the Book but you seem to get stuck in the mud due to your inability to understand what she said. Much the same as Craig Mckee who looked at a few pictures and figures he got what she is about.
The fact you sent the Book to Craig Mckee means you think there is validity in the few pages you read. Mckee read even less.
OK... what weaknesses are you talking about, that you see in the Book? OH!!!!!! I get it, because she didn't talk about nuclear fission, which is hot and burns with a lot of light, you didn't read the rest of the Book.
What University did you go to to major in Nuclear Fission?
You said..... "Because when reason bids us to stand on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work, fourth generation nuclear weapons appear, and greatly limit the number of nations capable of such. "
Fourth Generation..... what exactly is that, and what does that have to do with the destruction of Building #6 never mind the Towers? Does this Fourth Generation make noise? The reason why I ask, no-one heard any noise while the complex was being destroyed except wind making a roaring sound. Why did the 14 people in Stairwell B "not" experience this????
You said..... "Given that Israel has hands in the US's wallet, in its legislature, in its banks, in its technology, in its military, then it is only nature to assume that it has hands in the US's arsenals."
All of the Banks are controlled by the Rothchild's, even China. Morris Strong the millionaire and oil man from Canada went to China for the Rothchild's to set up their big Boom in everything. It takes money to make money.
Rothchild was originally a "Bauer" in Germany, and is now in London.
I think you got that backwards, it is the USA that controls everything in Israel, not the other way around. Israel wouldn't last five minutes without the back up of the USA.
What's a Zionist?
Oh!!!! I also don't follow "Judaism" but I do follow the Bible.
x52 Maxwell C. Bridges : Sincere & objective discussion participants grow.
2018-11-22
Sincere & objective discussion participants grow. They can acknowledge both the strengths in an opponent's arguments & sources and the weaknesses in their own. In the 9/11 space, all theories and their substantiating sources have weaknesses. Therefore, when such weaknesses are not acknowledged and when this happens repeatedly in the same realm, it becomes a flag of insincerity.
Tiresome is when "discussion progress" doesn't translate into "relationship progress" in terms of being able to build & expand upon previous exchanges in subsequent encounters. The next carousel spin starts from identical (misguided) position:
a) May 2016
b) December 2017
c) February 2018
d) November 2018
Below this comment, I'll post three reply's that contain rabbit-hole links from the time periods (a) through (c)_ above and this thread serving as (d).
One of my super powers is being naive, trusting, and taking another's words at face value, until given reason not to.
Yeah, well... (a)-(d) has given me reason to label Mr. Gloux as being "insinere", and most likely a paid Israeli troll.
// Part 1/4
From 2016-05-06
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
// Part 2/4
From 2017-12-29
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html#x358
// Part 3/4
From 2018-02-22
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
// Part 4/4
x53 Roger Gloux : squelched everything but your own perceptions
2018-11-28
2018-11-27
Craig McKee you do have the right to focus on what you want, because that is (or was) your blog. You heard explosions and you make a conclusion it was controlled demolition regardless the fact that Mark Loizeauz explains these kind of noises don't mean this is explosives.
As for Maxwell Bridges comments about Minni Nukes, or hot fission, there wasn't any fire, as each floor turned to powder in 1/10th of a second. The same with explosives that have to turn six inch steel into powder. This is not cutting charges cutting every 10 feet, but turning the whole length of the steel into powder In fact, you appear to be like Maxwell Bridges, only your using a different explosive.
Somebody has to explain how 14 people in Stairwell B wasn't blown to bits, or burned to death by fire, or not crushed by 110 stories of Building coming crashing down. In fact, these firemen saw sunlight before the dust came down on them. They walked out and down to the main floor because there wasn't anything on the main floor that represented 110 stories.
You squelched everything but your own perceptions, or things close to them. You squelched Maxwell Bridges and then put Dr, Judy Wood into that category with the "tinfoil" hats. I don't agree with Maxwell Bridges but I did read Dr Judy Wood's book several times to digest what she was saying as an expert Scientist. You leafed through a couple of pages and made your conclusion without trying to see what she was getting at. That's much the same as the other "truthers".
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : Error in attributing
2018-11-28
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, a sign of sincerity in a discussion participant is when they can accurately quote or explain their opponent's position. We have had numerous discussions that were seeded on my hobby-horse (FGNW).
Error is attributing to me "Minni Nukes, or hot fission."
Another error is in writing: "Somebody has to explain how 14 people in Stairwell B wasn't blown to bits, or burned to death by fire, or not crushed by 110 stories of Building coming crashing down." I've done that and explained how FGNW accomplish this feat easily by simply aiming their neutron output up. Further, owing to the duration of under-rubble hot-spot and their radioactive emissions (caught as camera scintillation in videos by NIST of the pile), not all FGNW met their expected yields and may have fizzled, thus also possibly sparing those in the stairwell.
Error is when you've read Dr. Wood's book several times and don't acknowledge that she hasn't prove all her tangents applicable, doesn't connect the dots, did shoddy FGNW research, and draws no conclusions. Her work is great for looking at evidence, but her own words tell readers that she is not the end station.
Error is not standing on the shoulder's of Dr. Wood's work and arriving at the conclusions that she couldn't.
On top of these errors, I've experienced your song-and-dance on Israel, how it is okay that Israel lobbyists and American Zionist are pushing a law in the USA that criminalizes criticizing Israel.
Links available upon request to where discussions between Mr. Roger Gloux and myself (on Facebook and my blog). It gets a bit tiresome when all that "progress in a discussion" is completely ignored by Mr. Gloux in a new round of carousel spins re-starting from week positions: Dr. Wood's book.
Sincere participants grow. Their opinions can change when new information is presented, and when their base information is proven in error.
... Hmmm. I wonder if there are dots to be connected between Saint Dr. Wood praising and brushing off badness of Israel (whereby 9/11 involvement is one example).
//
x55 Roger Gloux : old drywaller and truck driver
2018-12-05
2018-12-28
LOL You said..... "has given me reason to label Mr. Gloux as being "insinere", and most likely a paid Israeli troll. "
You have the right to believe what you want, but I can't be anymore sincere then I am. I don't see how you can believe there was "nukes" used without any fire.
As for being paid...... where's the money? I'm an old drywaller and truck driver that spent too much time searching things that happened on 9/11 and because of checking out all the different concepts of how the Seven Buildings were destroyed, I scratched your concepts of Nukes being used... scratched off of the list.
You want me to believe nukes can be used without heat or fire and on top of that no radiation at ground zero. Radiation is not selective. Everyone would have been radiated but not the 14 survivors in Stairwell B. They walked out and were not crushed by the 110 stories above them.
Now I need money so get somebody to pay me.
x56 Maxwell C. Bridges : missed comment
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, my apologies for missing this comment and for not responding sooner. I'll include an answer to a specific point in this -- "there was 'nukes' used without fire" -- in a rebuttal down below.
//
x57 Roger Gloux : four Jewish guys
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges I look at the videos of a Tower being destroyed in slow motion. I see big chunks of the outside wall falling and as it goes down it turns into dust. How does four Jewish guys putting brackets in a wall manage to make these outside pieces of steel turn to dust and how can "nukes" make these falling pieces turn to dust in front of our eyes but not see fire from nukes making it turn to dust?
Dr. Judy Wood doesn't say what caused this but you are saying "nukes" did this and it don't make sense. You say it is Fourth Generation Nukes and even if a person don't know how nukes are made, that person does know there is a lot of fire due to fission.
So watching in slow motion steel falling, trailing dust, and four Jewish guys did this with nukes makes me shake my head.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2IMiQzFu6I&list=PL_cJ8k_C3XEWi9IrA7dKse0vo8SE6J1oJ&index=5&t=0s&fbclid=IwAR0IctzPD7IF0k8Rg8C9viYzM3fzRB7KeAIZGlscgJHkBg1JgBl8Fquzxr8
x58 Maxwell C. Bridges : casual nukes and Israeli trolls
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, you wrote: "Dr. Judy Wood doesn't say what caused this (big chunks of the outside wall falling and as it goes down it turns into dust)" EXACTLY!!! Thank you for finally acknowledging this fact: Dr. Wood doesn't say what caused it.
If you were being honest and rational, you'd say "Dr. Wood did us a great service with her collection of evidence but didn't get us all the way to the operational mechanisms, so we must keep searching and be open to efforts that build upon her work."
If you were being honest and rational, you'd say that my FGNW is "worthy of study for its attempt at bringing Dr. Wood's work to the next level."
But you don't say such things, because you aren't being honest and sincere. You can't even bring yourself to read my FGNW premise, which is a huge ding on your objectivity.
How do I know this? Because if you had read it and were sincere, you wouldn't be trying to frame it as "casual nukes" with outdated assumptions, such as this gem of a HYPNOTIC ASSERTION: "even if a person don't know how nukes are made, that person does know there is a lot of fire due to fission."
Pure fusion devices require much energy to get them to the fusion point, which is why fission-triggered fusion anchors most FGNW devices. Low and behold, the USGS study on the dust documents the fission decay pathway of Uranium, indicating that fission was present. And there were at least two projects to explain away the tritium levels haphazardly measured; tritium is a main component of all FGNW device variants.
Chemical-based explosives and 1st through most of 3rd generation nuclear weapons delivered their energy to the target via intermediary mediums, such as air. Sudden and massive changes in air pressure from the explosion damage things.
But late-3rd and most 4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW), aside from already being scaled down to tactical levels, would release 80% of their energy as highly energetic neutrons that were expelled in a controlled fashion, like a cone which would gut the insides but not necessarily the core or outer wall assemblies. The remaining 20% of the energy of these scaled-down tactical weapons would be in side-effects of a heat wave, shock wave, and EMP. Fire balls and fires for sure (and consistent with the recorded evidence) but very much reduced and contained.
Back to those highly energetic neutrons. They pass through everything and deposit their energy deep within structures. Just by turning residual water in materials instantly into super-high pressure expanding steam, those materials are instantly dustified. With thin metal such as the pans and trusses for the poured concrete, these would ablate. The significant percentage of tiny iron spheres found in all dust samples suggest a very high energy source.
The FGNW devices were mounted on the inner core but the cone output was aimed away from it. Still, core material near the ignition point could experience instantly volume heating to levels that weaken even thick iron beams to point of sagging (but Dr. Wood called them "arches") or getting turned into horseshoes.
The comparatively thin steel of the spandrels connecting together the three hollow box columns of the wall assemblies? The FGNW output cone didn't target them, but did graze them and caused volume heating which allowed some of them to be turned into "steel doobies," the three box columns getting wrapped up by the pliant spandrels. Remember, these were three stories high, yet the spandrels at all three stories heated to pliancy.
it wasn't "four Jewish guys." You should look up how many Israeli "art students" were associated with the WTC and the operation in general; a number much greater than 4 who were detained, not questioned heavily, and deported.
++++
How do I know you are an Israeli troll, Mr Gloux?
- Israel-can-do-no-wrong comments.
- Parking 9/11 discussions into the cul-de-sac of Dr. Wood's work that is known to be incomplete, connects no dots, draws no conclusions.
- Avoidance of objective consideration of other premises that might complete Dr. Wood's work: FGNW.
The list goes on.
A few years ago already, I had hopes that I might nudge you to the next level for Dr. Wood's work. Your objectivity in grabbing hold of Dr. Wood's work as more accurately explaining the WTC destruction than chemical-based explosives ~hinted~ that you might be open-minded and objective enough to acknowledge the weaknesses in Dr. Wood's work that thereby necessitate FURTHER research. I had hopes that my FGNW extension would convince you, or at least get you out of Dr. Wood's false end-station and on to discovering what might be the true 9/11 end-station at the WTC.
But your mind-set hasn't changed. You've had no growth. Your seemingly simple but mal-framed questions about FGNW indicate you didn't read my premise, and if you did, the questions were deceitful distractions.
I patiently answered them again and again, often pointing to specific sections in my premise to help focus your reading attention. Why? The first couple rounds were in the hopes of convincing you. Because of your demonstrated lack of growth, subsequent rounds were not for your benefit, but for the benefit of truth and lurker readers.
Thank you for proving the existence of Israeli internet trolls.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
//
x59 Roger Gloux : Dr. Wood doesn't say what did it
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges regarding what caused the destruction....the "truthers" don't know, including you. All your stuff is all suppositions.
Dr. Judy Wood doesn't say what did it, but remarks on what is happening. She says this all of the time, so that's not new info.
On the other hand, you guess at what might be the cause. Tell me, how does huge sections of the outside wall detached from the structure, turn into dust in less then a few seconds?????
There isn't anything attached to this steel but in turns into dust before it hits the ground. No fire, no explosions, just a silent turning to dust. I see it and so do you.
You said.... "If you were being honest and rational, you'd say "Dr. Wood did us a great service with her collection of evidence but didn't get us all the way to the operational mechanisms,"
That wasn't her purpose, all she did was present the evidence of almost every aspect, and then lets the observer make a decision.
You chose "nukes". That's a guess.
In order to plant nukes on every steel I-beam, six inch steel tube (forty sen of them), and all of the concrete, with all of it's re-enforcement rebar, plus all of the contents in the occupied suites is a stretch of the of the imagination, and on top of that four guys planting this on everything every square inch of a 110 story building. You want me to believe that??????
You said.... "Thank you for proving the existence of Israeli internet trolls."
You sound like McCarthy, but instead of a Nazi under every rock, now your going with "Jews" everywhere.
Since you are castigating "Jews", where did they come from? The reason why I ask is your bent on blaming "them" so I was wondering how you would recognize "one"? Do you know what a "Jew" is?????
You said.....
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Yeah!!!! I'm looking at you. What's your ancestry?
x60 Maxwell C. Bridges : salient points not addressed
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, you play games and continue with your insincerity. Proof. (1) I never wrote "Jews". (2) You have still not addressed the salient points of the article that anchors this. (3) You seemingly continue to support Dr. Wood as an end-station when you admit her work isn't.
(4) You continue to mal-frame nukes and their placement. What is with this nonsense: "In order to plant nukes on every steel I-beam, six inch steel tube (forty sen of them), and all of the concrete..."
... Wait a minute... I know what is happening. Your Israeli AI algorithms were honed against opponents who champion nano-thermite. So you did the lazy nasty of copying from those previous exchanges, replaced "NT" with "nukes" (not even FGNW) inappropriately paste it as a rebuttal.
It clearly indicates ~we~ are not on the same page. Very little indication from this response that you've read my thesis (which has been a re-occurring theme). Very little respect that you can't correctly take on my premise, because you're copying from a database of canned answers, and your Mossad disinfo team isn't permitted into the realm of FGNW.
My ancestry has nothing to do with FGNW or 9/11 or Israel.
//
x61 Roger Gloux : clean your glasses
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges you said..... "(1) I never wrote "Jews"."
Ha.... no, you say everything but that.
You said... "(2) You have still not addressed the salient points of the article that anchors this"
That's like saying the person was shot "through and through" but because we can't figure out what "weapon it was exactly". we can't anchor it.
You said.... "(3) You seemingly continue to support Dr. Wood as an end-station when you admit her work isn't. "
She says over and over, something turned those buildings into powder. It wasn't explosives because there was no "boom boom boom" noises, and there was no fire or light. In fact the people who were caught in the dust storm said it was cooler than the ambient air. Because she doesn't tell you the "caliber" of the weapon, your not accepting it. strange.
You said.... "(4) You continue to mal-frame nukes and their placement. "
Lets pick just one thirty foot piece of steel tubing six inches thick, you want me to believe "nukes" turn this whole piece of steel tubing into dust without making any noise or fire. It don't fly Max. plus when you put "one on one" the thing is about 117 stories high and they turn to dust in front of you eyes, like that 700 story clump of steel called the "steeple", with no building around it, and it turns into powder. Nukes don't do that. You tou try to say every square inch of that steel is covered in little nukes to make it turn into powder without any flashes or explosions you belong on a nut farm. That steel faded into powder. You don't have to know what did it, all you have to do is say it turned into powder. You wont do that and then try and tell everyone it is NUKES that destroyed the buildings without any forensic evidence. Your guessing.
You said.... "... Wait a minute... I know what is happening. Your Israeli AI algorithms were honed against opponents who champion nano-thermite."
No "Jew" eh????? lol They were Arab Philistines and everyone knows some guy in a cave needing dialysis two time a week supplied the material.
The building had large amounts of aluminum and steel and if you see this in the powder, it must be nano thermite.?????
You can't think, the buildings turned into powder, obviously there is aluminum and iron oxide (rust) in the dust. Everybody saw the clips of how big steel is cut with thermite every ten feet and everybody saw the blinding light it produces. Now put this on every square inch to make it turn into powder. It's ridiculous.
You said... "It clearly indicates ~we~ are not on the same page."
I agree, you need to clean your glasses so you can see the building turn into dust without any fire in 10 seconds.
x62 Maxwell C. Bridges : written in an incredulous manner
2018-12-05
Dear Roger Gloux, yet another indication of a failure in your database.
Everything you write about "nukes" in an incredulous manner doesn't really apply to FGNW, because they are tactical (already sub KT) and of that only 20% might escape as a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The lion's share of 80% is released in a targeted fashion (upwards) in the form of highly energetic neutrons.
When you write about "buildings turned into powder," this is exactly what would be expected as a result of deep penetration in materials with highly energetic neutrons that FGNW are capable of. Why doesn't this get you to change your tune and go to next level Dr. Wood?
But as you continue in that paragraph about "buildings turned into powder", it immediately turns into you attacking thermite. Hello? Not my premise.
Another example of a database glitch. No previous responses to opponents who champion a narrow range of nuclear devices and can only be addressed effectively by section-by-section discussion. The Algorithm is forbidden from doing such research.
//
Maxwell Bridges
{mcb: Meme. "Pro-Isreal groups are attacking Rand Paul for Blocking $38 Billion in Aid" over a picture of Sen. Rand. "The IDF is awarding soldiers for a deadly crackdown on protests" over a picture of Israeli solders detaining a youth. "Israel asked the US to support Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi's murder" over a picture of Trump and Sharon. "And Israeli lobbyists filed fake lawsuits to slader boycott activists" over a picture of protestors one with a sign "Boycott Israel!!!". "If you really want to know who's in charge, look for the people you're not allowed to criticize" over a picture of George Carlin.}
https://www.facebook.com/MintpressNewsMPN/photos/a.427073724002835/2107745599268964/?type=3&theater
Maxwell Bridges
CNN fires commentator Marc Lamont Hill after he called for eliminating Israel, endorsed violent ‘resistance’
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cnn-fires-commentator-marc-lamont-hill-after-he-called-for-eliminating-israel-endorsed-violent-resistance?fbclid=IwAR36UtCj1ORxfKU5fRF6JSEWdThrgHgQY4RJtIQKJl9krQfuzRHucOzV-d8
x63 Roger Gloux : learn your history of "who is who"
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges well Max you really should learn your history of "who is who".
The Hamas Terrorist group is of Egyptian descent who control the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians are the Philistines who were situated on a different piece of land.in their origins.
The only people that started on "the Land" were the Israelite's. These Israelite's were comprised of 13 Tribes when Josephs split his inheritance to his two boys. Originally there were 12 Tribes called Israel.
Solomon the son of King David from the Tribe of Judah, built the Temple on "the Land" that was bought by King David from Ornan the Jebusite. That Temple was destroyed by an invading Army of the Babylonians now called IRAQ.
The Persian Empire (now Iran) defeated the Babylonians and allowed the Tribe of Judah back unto "the Land" so they could rebuild The Temple.which is part of Jerusalem. That piece of land consisted of 13 acres situated just below or South of what is now called Fort Antonia, that was built by the invading Roman Empire when Alexander the Great's armies were defeated.
Herod of the Roman Empire expanded the Temple to a size of 600 ft. square. It rose from the Kidron Valley to approximately 40 stories high.
The Nation of Judah consisting of mainly Judah and Benjamin Tribes were conquered by the Roman Empire and removed off of "that Land" in a revolt. General Titus the Commander of the army for the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple and the Old City of Jerusalem.
This General Titus renames "this Land" as Palestina, to further humiliate the Nation of Judah. The Palestinians never had "this Land" nor was there a "State" there.
Before all these conquests, there were 13 Tribes on 'that Land" called Israel. These 13 Tribes had split with Ten Tribes called Israel with a large portion of the Tribe of Levi, the Priests.
The Assyrian Empire conquered these northern 10 1/2 Tribes and removed them from "the Land", and replaced the Northern Tribes with Sameritans. These Northern Tribes called Israel eventually migrated to just North of the Caucasus Mountains and then to North Western Europe and became the Nations of North Western Europe from which your ancestry came from.
The Assyrians were conquered by the Babylonians and eventually migrated and now are called Germany.
All through this history some of the Tribe of Judah lived in the environs of Jerusalem their Capital City which is where the Temple was. The Palestinians never owned any part of "the Land". in the last 2,000 years. Most of it was desert like including the area of Tel Aviv in 1900. Since then, the "Jews" built that city to what it is today.
In 1947 the Balfour Declaration gave back some of the original "Land" to Judah, including their Capital City of Jerusalem.
Marc Lamont has no idea who "the Land" belonged to and once again wants to remove these people from "the Land" and give it to the Palestinians who never had it in the first place.
You also need to check out the ancestry of the owner of CNN who has this goof Marc Lamont working for him. All the main Media outlets are owned by people from ancient Israel. All Ashkenazi "Jews" are actually from Northern Israel which are not real :Jews" they are Israelites. the Sephardic Jews are from the Nation of Judah and these are the real "Jews".
Marc Lamont is African ancestry, but you Max Bridges have your ancestry from the Northern Tribes of Israel and just possibly from the Tribe of Judah. In either case your an Israelite regardless what you call yourself today.
Just so you know, if someone calls themselves "Jews" check and see if they are Ashkenazic or Sephardic "Jews". Most everyone in a position of Power, in the film industry, Media or the White House in the USA are Ashkenazi and actually from the Northern 10 Tribes. the Leaders of Modern Israel is run by Ashkenai "Jews", who actually originated in the Northern Ten Tribes and were the Leaders of Khasaria.
You have no idea that "google" and Facebook are owned by Ashkenazi people who come from the Northern Ten Tribes. So if your anti-Semetic your going to be on somebosy's radar.
My ancestry is French from the Tribe of Reuben.
x64 Maxwell C. Bridges : criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semetic
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, Thank you for the history lesson.
Alas, another database failure. You wrote: "So if your anti-Semetic your going to be on somebosy's radar."
I haven't been anti-semetic. Furthermore, criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semetic.
But your fawning over Israel and your inconsistent 9/11 discussions proves by your actions that I'm on Israel's radar. You're it, baby! My very own Mossad agent! Woo-hoo! Do I feel special!
//
x65 Roger Gloux : never been to Israel
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges OK McCarthy, I'm not Mossad nor will I ever be. I've never been to Israel.
Do any Governments make mistakes? Absolutely.
Is there anything specific about the Government of Israel getting you upset?
Don't you think the American Government has at it's disposal agents who will do anything the Government wants. It don't need agents from other Governments to do their bid.
You see four guys with Israeli credentials and right out of the blue these guys somehow manage to get "nukes", without drawing any attention to them, in rigging all seven buildings (not just the two Towers) for destruction. And without destroying half of Manhattan. In fact, the "bath tub" wasn't even chipped, never mind a crack or broken concrete on the "bath tub's" edges.
The Mall under the complex wasn't destroyed, and even the lights are on beneath Buildings #4 and #5. Half of Building $4 disappeared The rail cars were mostly not damaged or dented and lifted out with cranes................. and Israel did this with mini Nukes?????
Why Israel????? Why not Russia or the Hamas Egyptian group, or the Iranians.
Nooooo instead you zero in on Israel as if these guys can transport enough "nukes" through downtown New York, with specific detonation to only destroy WTC buildings and turn them into powder, without major damage to any other buildings except the front of Bankers Trust by falling outside section of one panel hitting the building.
If anyone came into the USA and started to blow things up, the USA can and would blow up anything attached to these people, Including their Commanders, but Israel is a bad guy because they shoot people from Gaza that try to kill their citizens and tourists.
The last barrage of 460 rockets from the Gaza Hamas Egyptian group killed an innocent Palestinian living in Israel.
Listen to this guy that you support and see who these people are....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwBSWN4s9JU
YOUTUBE.COM
palestinians are a myth says hamas member "they are just…
Jim Meade
Jim Meade Sorry to inter your discussion guys, but i thought this link would be of interest here.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181128-trump-us.../...
MIDDLEEASTMONITOR.COM
Trump: US troops will stay in Middle East to protect Israel
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Jim Meade that's a good thing, otherwise the Israeli neighbors would kill every man, woman and child including tourists.
Imagine that, the people in Gaza would stop getting Israeli benefits like electricity and medical aid.
Jim Meade
Jim Meade "Israeli benefits"??
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Jim Meade The reason why the US is in the Middle east is for the resources from all of those countries Like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and especially Iran because their oil makes the best gasoline.
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Jim Meade Israel supplies the electricity to the Palestinians and most of the time they don't get paid.
Jim Meade
Jim Meade Thanx for that bit of knowledge Roger Gloux. Here i thought Israel controls the supply of electricity and forces blackouts I them for the better part of the day.
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Jim Meade that's right and they don't pay for their electric bill. On top of that when they peacefully riot and send burning kites into Israel that burn up their crops and houses and small explosives that fall everywhere including school yards, the Isr…See More
YOUTUBE.COM
Palestinian Woman's life saved in Tel-Aviv Hospital
Jim Meade
Jim Meade Israelis are scumbags Roger Gloux. There is nothing you can say or link to to make me think otherwise.
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Jim Meade Yeah! that's what the Palestinian say but they sure need the Israeli help. SMH
BTW why are you so caustic? What information got you in this attitude?
Jim Meade
Jim Meade If the Israelis haven't been disrupting there lives for the past 60 years, Palestinians would be self sufficient and wouldn't need them for anything.
Jim Meade
Jim Meade Thanx for the chat Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Jim Meade They get millions of dollars in help but instead of building infra structure, they purchase rockets and send them into Israel. Considering these are Arabs, why don't the other Arab Nations give them the money they need. When they get money they build expensive tunnels for access to Israel so they can kill the Israelis, instead of using the money to fix their sewage problem. Everybody in the Mediteranian countries are fed up with raw sewage on their sandy beaches.
The Hamas Egyptian rebels were complaining they couldn't pay salaries for the Palestinian workers, so Israels sends them 15 million dollars, and as soon this is done, there is a barrage of rockets from Gaza. Go figure????
x66 Maxwell C. Bridges : very sad discussion
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Jim Meade, I thank you very much for your participation in this very sad discussion with Mr. Roger Gloux, who I suspect is half Mossad agent and half artificial intelligence being supported by an inferior database that has nothing to counter 9/11 Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), my hobby-horse. This explains why I get rebuttals that seem to copy-and-paste from debates with (main-stream) 9/11 Truthers who champion nano-thermite to get them on the Dr. Wood gravy train. Not applicable to FGNW.
Alas, FGNW is not NT, and Dr. Wood isn't an end-station in thought but most useful to get at FGNW. Lost on our Gloux-bot or agent.
"By deception we will wage war", or words to that effect explain Israel's Mossad methods. Mr. Gloux is one instantiation of such an agent.
- Can't admit the unfairness of a US law that would give extra protection to Israel in terms of critics.
- Can't admit that Dr. Wood isn't an end-station.
- Can't ever change his opinion based on new-ish findings that he isn't permitted to read and base his rebuttals on, lest it reveal nuggets of truth and his game of being a Dr. Wood supporter that can go no further.
- Well versed in Israel history and a huge champion.
The internet purges are happening. Glad that I have some back-stops.
//
x67 Jim Meade : these jokers some kind of artificial intelligence
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges i had some guy in Norma's 911 group say it was a good thing also. Then in typical fashion started throwing ad hominems . It wouldn't surprise me at all if these jokers were some kind of artificial intelligence.
I thank you for all efforts Maxwell.
x68 Maxwell C. Bridges : Norma Rae and her stable of agents
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Jim Meade, I had experiences with Norma Rae and her stable of agents. My hobby-horse isn't debunking No Planes at the WTC. But I managed to ride that carousel several times.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../npt-carousel-on-fb...…See More
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges I'll check that out when i get free time.
You think Norma is an agent? She always seemed fair and willing to evolve to me.
x70 Maxwell C. Bridges : Norma doesn't re-evaluate
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Jim Meade, Norma seemed fair and willing to evolve as long as she considered your position more bat-shit crazy than her own.
She is a huge fan of no planes at the WTC. But when the errors in her position are pointed out -- with physics and math --, when by rights she should be re-evaluating her position and move on, then her agentness and repetitive agenda come to the surface.
If you're bored, follow the first link, and search on "Norma", deep within you'll see where she goes off the rails. I'm no longer part of that FB group, so can't get to those Facebook links. But if you're curious and apply for membership, you'll be able to get to the source and validate my re-purposing activities.
Norma more than once posted memes that were in complete error. Here's a great quote from March 2014:
"I asked my 4th Grade daughter which object would fall a greater distance: a light object or a heavy object. She knew the lighter object would land further. Why? Because she used logic. 9/11 has messed with our ability to use our logic. I trust heavily on my logic."
Completely messed up. If a light object (e.g., passport) and a heavy object (e.g., engine) were traveling the same speed and then thrown from an aircraft, the heavier object has more energy from momentum to overcome resistive forces (like wind resistance) and would travel further.
Norma questions that an engine could rocket out of the towers, hit another building, and land on the street. I proved with physics that an exit velocity as low as 122 mph (reduced after impact from 500 mph) from the impact levels could go the distance observed (Church & Murray) to where the engine was found.
There was much more that pegged her an agent.
//
x71 Roger Gloux : anyone who disagrees with your perception is Mossad or AI
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges I truly find your reasoning very interesting. It appears anyone who disagrees with your perception is Mossad or involved with " AI " or some other way off the deep end concept.
The reason why I know the history of Israel is I study the Bible and traced where all the people mentioned in it..... are today. With your last name alone, I know your a descendant of the Nation of Israel that had 13 Tribes when the Assyrians (Germany today) and the Babylonians (Iraq tody) conquered them and forced them off of that "Land".
You see I was also tracing where my ancestors came from.
You Max, have no clue as to the history of these people or your own ancestry because you would never look in the Bible to see where all these people are today. These people kept impeccable information up to the point of going into diaspora.
Then you have to search in the history of Nations and where the people migrated to.
Along with this information, I found people in general, and so called "scholars" from these people kept calling Israel "Jews" when in fact only one Tribe was the "Jews". That leaves another twelve Tribes went somewhere after the were kicked off of "that Land" and replaced by other people by the Conquerors.
One Tribe in particular was involved in rebuilding their Temples and Herod the Great of the Roman Empire embellished this Temple so that it was renowned in all the then known world. In fact it was so renown visitors thought it to be one of the Wonders of this world like an Egyptian Pyramid.
I also found out the Persian Empire was very lenient on others that had a different religion, in fact Cyrus and Darius the Great supplied the materials needed to rebuild the Temple after the Assyrians demolished. Everyone who went to school knows the Persians are modern day Iran. Even with my grade 8 education I knew that.
Alexander the Great a Macedonian gangster conquered Persia and destroyed their Magnificent city of Persepolis. The remains of this beautiful city is still there.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Mq6FZSleA
The Persians were a World Ruling Empire of the then known world.
The Tribe of Judah actually (YaHUdah) were always coming back to their original place and that was Jerusalem the Capital City of all 13 Tribes originally.
The Tribe of Judah wanted this Land back as their own dominion, but the Roman Empire wasn't going to do that, they allowed this Tribe to live in this City of Jerusalem because that was the location of their Temple. This Tribe revolted and started a war with the Roman Empire and were conquered once again and General Titus with Three Legions (18,000 fighting soldiers) squashed the revolt and totally destroyed the beautiful Temple right down to it's foundations.
Over the centuries there was several attempts to rebuild the Temple but to no avail Constantine the Great allowed a rebuilding and after 19 years of construction by the Tribe of Judah, Constantine's mother thought this wasn't a good idea, so Constantine stopped the building project in Jerusalem. The material used in this re-construction was raided by people building other buildings in Jerusalem and to this day it is vacant.
The place called the Temple Mount is actually Fort Antonia of the Roman Empire. This Fort was named after the famous General Mark Anthony.
The Roman Empire is the longest world ruling empire that went up to the British Isles. The same size of Forts were constructed there as well, which is approximately 36 acres each which housed 6,000 fighting soldiers and 4,000 service personnel like cooks and whatever was needed by the troops.
Whether you are Dutch or English descent, your ancestry goes back to a place called Khasaria.
When the Assyrians conquered the Northern Tribes of Israel, they displaced them to an area under the Caucasus Mountains among the Medes. Look on any ancient map to see where this area is. Some of these people migrated into Spain on the Hebrew Peninsula. This Peninsula is named in Hebrew which, is Iber-ian to this day. These folks also migrated North into what we now call Europe, but the Roman Empire called this area Britania. This is also a Hebrew word which is "berit" meaning Covenant.
Meanwhile the larger remainder of the Northern Tribes moved across the Caucasus Mountains and remained there until 1200 CE, when the Six tribes of the Rus (Russian) conquered them and they in turn migrated to North Western Europe where they are now Nations.
Just as an aside, the word "caucasian" is the color of skin these Kha-sars had. Another spelling of this word is "C-sar" and "Ca-e-sar". That the etymology of this word.
So in your profound ignorance you don't realize your an Israelite..... not a "Jew" because they are the Tribe of Judah.... but from the Northern Tribes.
These Israelites then migrated to the New World and established "13 colonies". Is this a coincidence of the "13 Tribes"?
Knowing this history doesn't mean I'm Mossad because the vast majority of "Jewish" people don't know this history just like you don't know and are totally ignorant. But the Leaders do know because they have the money to search this out.
Every President is related through their mothers blood line. Every Leader in Industry and Media know this bloodline. They are called the Industrial Complex.
So this took me into wanting to know why there was different types of "Jews" (six in total) and the main ones are the Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
This takes us back to Khasaria. About 1,000 years ago the Khasars were being pressed by Islam and the Byzantine religions to join their religious beliefs. At this time the Khasars were into Shamanism. They instead joined "Judaism" as a ploy to get these other religions off of their backs.
Only the Nobles of Khasaria staid in Judaism and their offspring are the Ashkenazi today. These are not real "Jews" but from the Northern Tribes of Israel. So when you look at the banking system and the Stock Market, these guys are not real "Jews" but from Khasaria and they know it.
So now we look at Yale University and the famous "Skull and Bones". There is anywhere from 500 to 800 of these "bonesman" alive at any one time. These control all the Leadership positions in Politics, all the Banking positions, all the Media positions, all the main Hollywood positions including Music.
Anyone can find this information, but like you, thy are not going to investigate anything if it pertains to "Jews" and the irony in all of this is they are not "Jews". So you remain ignorant.
If you want information go to the "Jew hate site" that reveals all the history of the Ashkenazi even to the Rothchild's Dynasty.
The real name of the Rothcnilds is "BAUER".
OH!!!!! All of the famous Movie Stars going back to the 1920's and earlier, are from Khasaria, not the tribe of Judah.Barbara Streisand, Eddie Durante, Kirk Douglas and son Michael,Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and all who are Ashkenazi come from Khasaria the children of the Nobles.
So your hate of "Jews" is not really "Jews" but from the same people you came from.
Have you ever wondered why Modern Israel is not called "Judah" Or "YeHUdah" meaning someone from the Tribe of YeHUdah?
Because they are Ashkenazi from the Northern Tribes and not YeHUdah.
Manage
YOUTUBE.COM
Ancient City Persepolis
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : Did Israel benefit from 9/11?
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, good job of copy-and-paste, but it isn't relevant.
How does that history explain the need for Israel to strong-arm US politicians to sponsor a US law to make criticism of Israel a crime? You continue to avoid the article that anchors this discussion.
Did Israel benefit from 9/11? How?
Why couldn't Israel be involved with 9/11, as you imply? Even after dozens of Israeli art students were deported after 9/11? How about the Mossad informants who were housemates or neighbors of those who were named 9/11 patsies?
//
x73 Roger Gloux : typed it from my memory
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges Nothing was copied and pasted, all of it is information I acquired over the years and I just typed it from my memory. Persepolis is a very interesting documentary of the Persians (Iran) so I included that because it was the Persian King who supplied the material for the 2 nd Temple.
This is also proof the Israelites were there long ago and not the Philistines/Palestinians.
You must just race over what I wrote and it is above your thinking process......
You asked..... "How does that history explain the need for Israel to strong-arm US politicians to sponsor a US law ....."
You don't get it.
All these Leaders are from Khasaria or the displaced Northern Ten Tribes.
In fact, when you read the history of Khasaria you will find their Capital building was called the White House.
Now concentrate you dufus, the Leaders of the White House USA are also the Leaders of Modern Day Israel, who are the children of the Nobles of Khasaria. they are not real Jews. So the picture of the Senator at the top of this thread wants to protect all the leaders and their families and other descendants of Ashkenazi Khasaria origins.
Now id you really hate "Jews", go after those folks that have the diamond industry and have "kiss curls" on the temples of their heads, these are Sephardic and they don't agree with the Ashkenazi. Two different Tribes.
You asked..."Did Israel benefit from 9/11? How?" because both the USA and Israel are from the same ancestry and are going for world domination. And YOU come from the same ancestry.
You asked.... "Why couldn't Israel be involved with 9/11, as you imply?"
Because the method of destruction on all seven buildings was from a US owned weapon. Your so bent on trying to makes this "nukes", you missed what Dr. Judy Wood was showing. Not space beams from space to deride her, but something much closer like from a high flying airplane that can be aimed.
You asked..... "Even after dozens of Israeli art students were deported after 9/11? "
So was the Saudis, who flew the only planes in the sky to get out of the USA. Might as well blame them to. Remember the Saudi Princes (500 hundred of them) are protected because their own people would tear their arms out, because of controlling the oil and wasting the money. In return the Princes loan the US money and oil for this protection.
You see..... those students didn't control the weapon that destroyed those seven buildings. The only way you can make them part of this is invent this caucamamie idea which is they carried "nukes" into all seven buildings while people were working there, and destroyed it without anyone knowing.
I forgot to ask, where did you learn how to handle "mini nukes" and how to build them? What school or University did you go to to learn this?????
You asked.... "How about the Mossad informants who were housemates or neighbors of those who were named 9/11 patsies?"
Do you mean the 19 Arabs who were not on any plane passenger registry?
x74 Maxwell C. Bridges : assigned to FB to champion disinformation and muddy the waters
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, when you don't use the proper words even when corrected (FGNW and not "nukes"), it becomes part of the neon sign that you aren't being sincere. The insincerity impression lingers when you force me to re-iterate what I already covered in my blog articles, because you were too lazy to read them and address their salient points.
And you continue to champion Dr. Wood... but with inapplicable crap. Case in point, you wrote: "Because the method of destruction on all seven buildings was from a US owned weapon. Your so bent on trying to makes this "nukes", you missed what Dr. Judy Wood was showing. Not space beams from space to deride her, but something much closer like from a high flying airplane that can be aimed."
Just because I own a car, doesn't mean I'm responsible for someone else crashing it. Israel has its arm so far up USA's butt, they have access to US technology to build their own, if not the very weapons themselves from US arsenals. (Israel is not part of any nuclear proliferation treaty, but it is know they have nuclear weapons.)
No skin off my nose if the Israeli Mossad agents posing as art students installed US-made or Israeli-made FGNW. I speculate that they were doing mostly preparation work, such as building lead boxes with an open top that they mounted to the spire. Their purpose was to limit neutrons traveling sideways or downward that could foul neighboring FGNW devices.
Yes, I missed what Dr. Judy Wood was showing because: she doesn't connect dots, doesn't draw conclusions, has several inapplicable detours, and has proven shitty research into both nukes and ABL. Case in point, you imply that Dr. Wood wasn't driving at beams from space, but beams from air planes. That is a lie; she doesn't.
But given that beams from planes now seems to be your bent, prove it? I've done the research into DEW, but you have been so happy and content in Dr. Wood's dead-end-alley, you haven't. If either Dr. Wood or you would have researched this even a tiny bit, you'd discover that: yes, airborne lasers were a real thing in 2001, but are inapplicable.
Tell me: how much energy is required to pulverize just one floor of a WTC with an ABL beam? Using that number, how would it be created in the plane's ABL system? (Hint: it is generally done by a chemical reaction.) What sort of quantities would be required of the chemicals in the plane to achieve this? The numbers are not trivial.
It is one thing to consider an ABL boring a hot hole into the warhead, rocket engine, or fuel tanks of a missile, and then while still boring using the very nature of the warhead, engine, or fuel tank to get it to explode. Let's say the hole is less than 1 cm. The energy density required for that can be calculated.
But the nature of the towers does not inherently have "warheads, engines, or fuel tanks" to assist in the decimation process. The surface area for the energy density isn't 1 cm, but essentially the width and length of the building, and that multiplied by each floor. A huge energy sink that your ABL needs to generate somehow, and is a glaring hole in Dr. Wood's (and your non-explanation).
Worse for you, ABL's are line of sight, yet observation of the destruction of each show that it did not happen starting at the very top, but within the towers at about the impact levels.
Maybe I'd give you some slack in proposing ABL's that were mounted inside the towers, but this you don't do. You continue to champion a Woodsian non-explanation that doesn't match the recorded evidence or the energy requirements.
Why don't you apply Dr. Wood's work to devices that might be planted in the tower? Then you wouldn't have to worry about getting massive amounts of chemicals into the air, or the fact that decimation happened starting from within. Neither you nor Dr. Wood go this route, because massive amount of chemicals would be needed within the building and you're too busy covering the asses of both Israel and the US by holding to Dr. Wood's non-solution.
But wait! Those massive energy requirements are easily met and exceeded by fourth generation nuclear weapons that are significantly smaller and don't require massive amounts of chemicals, which you won't even consider in a sincere or rational fashion. Those same FGNW would and did leave nuclear traces. And your supposed objectivity ignores this.
Nope, Mr. Gloux, you're a Mossad agent assigned to FB to champion disinformation and muddy the waters. Dr. Wood is considered a suitable stop-gap measure to prevent the public's revelation into FGNW.
//
x75 Roger Gloux : If the weapon is Nuclear, is it not "nuke" Powered?
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges OK.... Max your Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons is Nuclear, is it not? For short I say "nukes" meaning something with Nuclear Power. If the weapon is Nuclear, is it not "nuke" Powered?
x76 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW or "tactical nukes"
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, FGNW may have nuclear components, but when you call them "nukes", your disinfo game is to have people attribute to them the same characteristics of the huge nukes that the media has been scaring us with for generations. "Oh, it would have a huge heat wave, huge pressure wave, huge EMP. And don't get me started on the radiation."
If you don't want to use FGNW, use "tactical nukes". Otherwise, you are playing deceitful games.
//
x77 Roger Gloux : never felt or heard anything like explosions
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges OOOHHHH!!!!! OK thanks for the clarification. So these "tactical nukes" were used to destroy 7 buildings with the WTC Prefix but was very selectively under control only aimed at specific targets while the buildings were systematically destroyed and not damaging most of the seven floors below ground level leaving the lights on under Buildings #4 and $5 and not damaging the Mall and the stores in that Mall and most importantly the "bathtub" and 2/3 the train station.
No heat involved with these "tactical nukes", and no concussion and no EMP waves. And radiation is not involved otherwise everyone would have been burned (infected) by it. but only a low dose for some.
Now I understand why 14 people in Stairwell B never felt or heard anything like explosions and walked out from the stairwell.
It was "tactical mini nukes".
All the tall buildings foamed out dust just on one side and Building #7 did this for over six hours all due to tactical nukes doing it slowly. I guess that's why Mark Loizeauz said it wasn't Controlled Demolition?
Am I getting it?
x78 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW also fall into the category of DEW
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, do you know what DEW stands for? You ought to, what with you being such a troll for Dr. Wood.
Guess what? Nearly all variants of FGNW also fall into the category of DEW.
You made comments under this blog article in February of this year.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
You didn't read it then, you didn't read it now. Just a Mossad agent spinning round and round. Google "Dr. Andre Gsponer" and see what he's written about FGNW starting a decade before 9/11.
If you were objective and not promoting an Israeli agenda, you'd acknowledge that FGNW takes Dr. Wood's work to the next level.
//
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
x79 Roger Gloux : a round hole in a sidewalk
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges To continue the reply's from your derision, you stated....."But given that beams from planes now seems to be your bent, prove it? I've done the research into DEW, but you have been so happy and content in Dr. Wood's dead-end-alley, you haven't."
Yep, I didn't check anything. I looked at the round circles in the debris and wondered what could do that? Even a round hole in a sidewalk. Those holes were all over the whole WTC site, so I searched. If you would have actually looked at the pictures of these round hole in the book you would have to wonder what did that? The reason why I point this out is this is after the buildings were destroyed and the circles show up in the debris. Id it was controlled demolition or "tactical nukes" of the Fourth Generation how could this appear if the buildings are gone with nothing to hold them up?????? What attracted me to this video was the picture of a 747 with a refitted nose cone that look's exactly like the one at the 17:00 minute mark.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVI09UwkPC0
Considering they are revealing this information in a documentary, you can bet and win, they have something else much more refined, powerful and destructive along the same line.
The round circles also reveal it is a weapon that can be aimed because if it was something like charges doing it in sequence or as you suggest many mini "tactical nukes", how in the world would it make circles?. I know you never handled these "tactical nukes" because you haven't the money nor the lab to make them because of the incredible costs of such very dangerous materials. Nor did you ever see any. Your guessing. well guess what did this....
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1909570095805446&set=a.878380988924367&type=3&theater
YOUTUBE.COM
Directed Energy Weapons - History Channel Documentary
x80 Maxwell C. Bridges : exclude either ABL or NT from being the primary mechanism of WTC destruction
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I asked in the past for images to these sidewalk holes you reference(d). Nothing.
My position on ABL (airborne laser) is similar to my position on nano-thermite. I do not exclude it from being involved on 9/11, because the perps threw everything including kitchen sinks at this, with redundancy and back-up plans to the back-up plans.
What I exclude is either ABL or NT being the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. I did my research into DEW, and my discovery (or anybody's discovery, really) is that Dr. Wood screwed up in this area as well. She let it get extrapolated to where it doesn't apply, just like Dr. Jones let NT get extrapolated where it doesn't apply.
If you want to say an ABL put holes in the sidewalk, fine, maybe. (But my FGNW can explain them, too. Let's see the images.)
More importantly, ABL could not provide the energy density per square cm OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH & WIDTH of a tower (missing the spires, of course) to cause pulverization (if we ignore that pulverization started from within towers and not at the top as would be expected from ABL "beaming the building to nothing"). WORSE, the energy requirements (or chemicals quantities) at the source would be crippling to a flying aircraft.
And even though I am always one to say that "we shouldn't confuse one event (or building destruction) with another or assume the means of destruction for one were the same for all others," let me make an exception here as a little thought experiment.
According to my speculation, the individual FGNW for the towers released their highly energetic neutrons DEW-fashion as a cone directed upwards. They were probably staggered in placement around what became known as the spire. The cone was aimed away from the spire and grazed the outer wall assemblies. Staggered ignition times; not all of them reached full potential; explains the evidence.
Take the same FGNW devices and put them into four corners (and maybe mid-points from the corners along walls) and aim them away from the walls and upwards. Voila, you get WTC-6 without any floors or ceiling -- a seeming crater --, but don't affect the vaults under WTC-6.
Take the same FGNW devices and put them into WTC-4 main edifice. Maybe they aren't aimed as well, which is why that edifice appears to be flattened (but is really just gone). As for the North wing and why it didn't fall? WTC-4 had a gold vault, and North wing might have been on top of it. Money is a proven motivator for 9/11.
Take the same FGNW devices but not have enough of them put them into WTC-5 aimed upwards. The cone of energy could create the holes in the roof.
My scenario: destruction originates from within and has unique characteristics as is exits the building into the sky.
Your scenario of ABL, destruction originates from without and goes to within. Problem is, all of the above buildings were gutted much more severely from within than beams of energy outside-to-in could create.
CAVEAT: While I piss on ABL as being a viable means for the primary destruction of the buildings in the WTC, ABL remains a very good candidate as the source for the recent California fires. California tinder-box forests has been ripe for ignition for decades. (Colorado is due for a massive fire, owing to all the dead pine trees from beetle infestation.) However, the fires in CA seem to start within buildings and at vehicles. Why? The energy of the lasers is most readily absorbed by metals, heating such pieces to the point of igniting neighboring materials affixed to the metal.
//
x81 Stephen Sinner : AFFECTED BY THE 9/11 LIE
2018-12-05
EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS BECAUSE EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET IS AFFECTED BY THE 9/11 LIE,
https://www.911tap.org/.../775-u-s-attorney-for-the...
HERE, NOW, IS THIS VIDEO THAT SHOWS AND CAN BE HEARD, PROVING RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST DID NOT CAUSE THESE "BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY" IN THE SOUTH TOWER *[]* OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
***** BEGIN VIEWING THIS VIDEO, courtesy of STFNews, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA_m3taErXI ) TO WITNESS THIS CLIP THAT IS SEEN AND HEARD FROM {{ 10:40 to 11:07 }} *****
EVERYBODY SHOULD BE SHARING THIS VIDEO CLIP !!!
#911TruthAndJusticeNOW *[]*
911TAP.ORG
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Responds…
x82 Roger Gloux : just turned to dust
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges I don't know if it was lasers (ABL) that burned those round holes in Building #6 inside the green square in the picture in my last post, but whatever it was, it burned round holes as seen in that picture. You had asked me to prove aircraft with lasers so I showed you the widely known documentary revealing that.
As for nano thermite, how could you put that on every square in in the buildings to turn it into powder? Thermite is used to cut heavy steel like "rails" on railroads . to either cut them or weld them together. There was no hot flashing bright light on every floor.
You said..... "of a tower (missing the spires, of course) to cause pulverization".
Nothing that pulverizes was used, instead it just turned to dust, and everyone that is shown what was happening agrees it was turning to dust but without anything explosions to do that. Even that cluster of steel called "the spire" just faded to dust. Huge chunks of outside wall steel grid was turning to dust before it hit the ground.What was making it turn to dust. Nothing was fastened to it, nor could anything inside the building was aimed at it because the building was turning to powder.
Lets stop here for a second, that steel sticking up 700 feet in the air was striped of any other part of the building. It was "naked". we all stare at it.... and it fades into dust. No explosions, not cutting charges and it didn't go through the basement floors. so what made it fade away into dust like that? That's big heavy 6 inch steel Max. Your explanation of your "stuff" is aimed from the corners or perimeter of the building don't work because it is all gone leaving the spire all by itself. Your making this up as you go and forget the building is gone leaving just "the spire" sticking up and it just turns to dust. One piece 30 feet long is a flat deck truck load because of it's weight and there was a cluster of these with one spire sticking up and all of it turns to dust. I used to haul heavy steel and flat plate, coils to make tanks and that is very heavy material. And this spire is made of heavier material and it turns to dust. What did this????
x83 Maxwell C. Bridges : algorithm to go completely off-topic
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, looks like I hit a trigger in your coding which then inspires your algorithm to go completely off-topic. I have not been defending NT. But because I brought it up briefly as being a parallel in my mind to ABL in terms of "maybe being in the mix but not the primary mechanism," your bot-circuitry goes off into the weeds and ignores the more salient points of FGNW.
Bravo! That comment was completely irrelevant.
Does not apply to FGNW.
Does not apply to Israel (the main theme of the top posting.)
Here's a great example of you being a bot and missing the point. You write: "Nothing that pulverizes was used, instead it just turned to dust, and everyone that is shown what was happening agrees it was turning to dust but without anything explosions to do that."
Completely wrong. Obviously, if pulverization happened, then something was used. You keep evading that FGNW has the energy sources and the output to do it, and is essentially what Dr. Wood was driving at but the end-station she couldn't get to (without danger to self).
"Without anything explosions to do that..."? I think you mean, "without anything explosive" as in "chemical explosives" to do it. Shit, we are in agreement that it wasn't chemical explosives.
However, the very nature of FGNW and how they deposit large amounts of energy deep into materials, this can and does causes explosions. Material particularly with water content gets blown apart from the inside as instantaneous super high temperature steam rapidly expands. Muted explosions compared to explosives, but explosions none the less.
You're a bot, an agent, and an idiot that you can't see how FGNW is the natural extension of Dr. Wood's work, and has an easily explainable and time-test power source.
//
x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : duped by the imagery manipulation
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, I was duped by the imagery manipulation discussed in your video for several years, but I kept researching.
I do not discount that some imagery manipulation happened. Hell, there are 4 versions of the helicopter shot, and there are 4 frames from a parking video camera that prove it happened.
Alas, the no planes at the WTC is disinformation.
The argument about the plane SEEMINGLY entering into the towers effortlessly and in the same number of frames it traveled through air is a stilted one that doesn't adhere to high velocity physics and malframes the structural physics of both the plane and the towers.
I'll be brief. (a) The high velocity of the aircraft and the slow frame rate of the video camera means that a range of velocities would be rendered in the same number of frames. The disinfo agents want you to think that no deceleration happened, when it did.
(b) Once penetration of the wall assemblies face was achieved [call this E1 for energy #1], the resistive energy to further insertion into the building by subsequent building content and structure [E2] would decrease significantly; E2>E1. In other words, once a hole is bored through the wall for the leading edges of fuselage, very little would resist the rest of the fuselage coming in. The disinfo agents want you to think that building is end-to-end one solid block of concrete or steel with constant resistance to all movement into the structure.
(c) The velocity squared term in the energy equation of the traveling plane gets to be huge, and exceeds the local static energy of materials of, say, the plane's wings. The wings don't bounce, but they do get shattered and the fragments sometimes bounce and sometimes fly into the building. The tail didn't bounce, because a path was already plowed into the structure.
Look for my discussions with Dr. Fetzer on this topic, but is repeated with others as well, without the champions of NPT able to counter.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../debunking-nptwtc.html
//
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Debunking NPT@WTC
x85 Stephen Sinner : BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY
2018-12-05
"BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY".... Not Plane. I am only exploring the BOMBS that EXPLODED at near the top of WTC # 2 In this Video from ... 10:40 .. TO .. 11:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA_m3taErXI
YOUTUBE.COM
9/11 PLANES AS FAKE AS IRAQI WMD's
x86 Maxwell C. Bridges : avail yourself of these options
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, if you would like to continue with this topic, I kindly ask that you avail yourself one of these options:
a) Go to one of my blog postings where I debunk NPT@WTC and make a comment there. Don't be offended that I have comments on moderation and might not immediately know of your comment in the queue.
b) Go to a relevant posting on my Facebook wall and make a comment there. Trick option, because I probably don't have any that relate to NPT@WTC, because it isn't my hobby-horse. However, if you message me, I'll rectify this deficiency on my FB wall.
However, in this thread? With an Israeli topic and already a diversion into FGNW?
Unless you're going to prove or demonstrate that NPT@WTC was implemented by the Israeli Mossad as a huge disinformation vehicle to run rational discussion through the weeds, let me stop the NPT carousel now so that it can start somewhere else more appropriate.
P.S. Real aircraft hit. Period. Maybe not the exact alleged commercial aircraft, but aircraft none the less.
The link below should take you to an entry in one of my earlier FB discussions on NPT (the predecessor to the previous NPT@WTC link). It documents convincing evidence of a real aircraft having hit WTC-1. It has images, links to images, and some of the images from validated reports that talk about various large pieces of aircraft that were found.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../npt-carousel-on-fb...
If you're over on my blog reading it and have issues with a section (pay attention to the section numbers like "x224"), then might as well make your ire known in the comments underneath the very same blog posting. Like I said: please don't be offended if I don't get around to approving comments promptly.
//
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
x87 Stephen Sinner not inclined to acuqiess to your request
2018-12-05
i am not inclined to acuqiess to your request,
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : not to promote NPT@WTC here in this thread about Israel
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, I don't blame you for not wanting to make a comment under one of my relevant blog postings about NPT@WTC. I won't fault you for not encouraging me to create a Facebook thread dedicated to both of my NPT@WTC blog entries that document lots of other spins on the NPT carousel (on Facebook), because I don't really want to discuss NPT either.
But you will adhere to my request not to promote NPT@WTC here in this particular Facebook thread about Israel and belonging to me. That is just common courtesy. I asked you nicely.
Because I don't want to deal with it here and I control this thread, I'll delete your attempts to further that discussion. My bad and apologies in advance, but I been there and done dat.
All the best,
//
x89 Roger Gloux : pounding or grinding
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges regarding "pulverization" you said.... "Completely wrong. Obviously, if pulverization happened, then something was used."
The only thing missing in your perception is the "instrument" used to do this pulverization of every square inch of all these buildings including 6 inch steel. The meaning of pulverization is....
"to reduce to dust or powder, as by pounding or grinding"
Every floor was destroyed in 1/10th of a second and your saying something pounded or ground it up??????
Maybe you should use another word lol.
You said.... "You keep evading that FGNW has the energy sources and the output to do it, and is essentially what Dr. Wood was driving at but the end-station she couldn't get to (without danger to self)."
Dr. wood specifically avoided your perception because you don't make sense, even if you have good English linguistics to express yourself.
What your trying to do is pound a square block into a round hole. Use a different word, pulverization is not accurate to what we see happening. Explain how large chunks of the outside steel façade is turning to dust with nothing attached to it, as it is heading for ground level????? Each piece is turning to dust in it's free fall and it don't reach ground level. You couldn't hall that much steel on one truck because we are talking about 100's of tons of steel in one chunk, and it is just trailing dust and disappears because there is nothing left to turn to dust. What's grinding it to dust?????
This is not pulverization.
I'm not evading FGNW, it just don't fit in what is happening. A square peg don't fit a round hole so why use it?
You said..... " I think you mean, "without anything explosive" as in "chemical explosives" to do it. Shit, we are in agreement that it wasn't chemical explosives."
I mistyped the word and retyped it wrong anyways. but yes there was no explosives used because the amount needed to turn the building into powder would have destroyed all the surrounding building by the concussion not forgetting the immense heat and fire as the result of using that. A propane truck blew up on a Hiway and the rear ends on the truck vaporized. Nothing was found. Same thing with a truck hauling explosives and some guy fired a rifle shot into this unmarked truck and all that was left is a forty foot crater and all the buildings around were destroyed.
Now we are talking about two 110 story sky scrapers plus the other five buildings and all seven of them was destroyed without explosions from any explosives because there is nothing left with no concussions. Everybody heard explosions but no-one saw explosives. A gas tank explodes. a transformer explodes, a steam tank explodes, welding tanks explode, as do Scot Pacs on fire trucks and there was no fire around them. Same thing with the Parking Lot a block away, and all the cars that had aluminum blocks just melted away and there was no fire there. what destroyed these cars?
You said.... "You're a bot, an agent, and an idiot that you can't see how FGNW is the natural extension of Dr. Wood's work, and has an easily explainable and time-test power source."
It takes one to know one.
Show me your source in action as a test.
x90 Stephen Sinner Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
2018-12-05
Stephen Sinner
Stephen Sinner "But, no one saw explosions" ?????? YES !!! The 'Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry Are using this Video in their pursuits to get a GRAND JURY ..., that, btw, has just recently been approved of by the Courts !!!, as many of you are already aware of. . .
Lawyers Committee for 911 Inquiry Incorporated ...
Are using this video clip that i've been posting on Fb ever since i first seen this clip from STFNews . The clip in question, shows the entire "BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY" ( to quote DONALD TRUMP ). That is the good news. They Are over the CRIME. However, the clip that they are using isin't the 'rest of the story', as you'll see and HEAR in the second video clip i've highlighted in the second video clip, seen and HEARD, below: to wit:
LCGrandJuryPetition1Exhibit42
View this LCGrandJuryPetition Exhibit:
* Begin viewing this Video at . . . . . . . . .[ 21:09 to 21:44 ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=106...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously, the LC Grand Jury isn't using the following video,
do they:
* Begin viewing This video from ... [10:40 to 11:21 ]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA_m3taErXI
It looks like a lot of people should bring this later video to the attention of Dr. Graeme MacQueen , and the 'Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry', ok, Right ??????
Manage
YOUTUBE.COM
LCGrandJuryPetition1Exhibit42
x91 Maxwell C. Bridges : attempts to park understanding
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I'm tired of your game playing, too. You want to construe "pulverization" as in the act of turning something into close to pulver or powder as only being possible by something smashing into, like an explosive shock wave.
Your argumentation is so stilted in that you imply only DEW can do this, yet you refuse to admit that all FGNW are in the category of DEW.
Like an Israeli troll with an agenda, you want to keep questioning chemical explosives (valid) but only to replace it only with an ill-defined DEW weapon that you won't research or speculate into even its source of power (invalid).
Your attempts to park understanding at Dr. Wood's book pegs you an agent. Were you an objective and non-agenda-toting participant, you'd be able to say:
"By jove, I think you raise valid questions that Dr. Wood doesn't have a valid or time tested power source. She did poor research into the state of DEW and the state of nuclear weapons, and the Venn diagram that links the two. Therefore, being fair and objective, I will consider what the power source could be. And while doing so, I will acknowledge that: all of the trace decay elements of fission were measured in the dust; tritium was measured in the water; and the Dr Cahill air sampling proving continually generated fine particles. These all point to DEW powered by nuclear tricks."
You haven't read my works, haven't considered its premise section-by-section, and as an Israeli agent who's half bot, you aren't allowed to.
//
x92 Maxwell C. Bridges : take a break from posting
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, please take a break from posting in this discussion here about either Israel or nuclear involvement on 9/11.
I no longer care whether your posting relates to the overall Israeli discussion or not. I don't want your copy-and-paste efforts slipping in NPT disinfo.
I have no problems retroactively deleting all of your distracting comments in this thread (including even some of my responses). Fair warning to make a copy and save them off-line; I'll not have problems with you copying those saved words into some other discussion thread relevant to that topic.
Say the word, and I'll create such a thread and personally invite you. No loss.
Continue to disrespect my requests that were nicely conveyed?
I'm much too jaded to deal with it nicely further.
Don't lose your words needlessly by pushing my buttons. Copy them before commenting again, just in case, because if that comment slips in NPT side-ways, I'll slip all your words under my thread into the bit bucket. My tolerance is very low, and this is as graceful and as fair as you're going to get out of me in trying to get me to ride that disinfo carousel in this thread.
My home, my rules.
//
x93 Roger Gloux : Have you got Dr. Judy Wood's book?
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges you said.... "I'm tired of your game playing, too. You want to construe "pulverization" as in the act of turning something into close to pulver or powder as only being possible by something smashing into, like an explosive shock wave."
Heh Max, I thought I would quote the dictionary of what this word means. I'm sorry you think that is a game. I'm trying to check everything your saying so I don't misconstrue what your saying. So use a different word for steel turning into powder.
You said.... "Your argumentation is so stilted in that you imply only DEW can do this, yet you refuse to admit that all FGNW are in the category of DEW."
Max, all I'm trying to do is make the pieces fit. So don't get upset if you can't communicate what you mean.
You still didn't explain the big hole in the sidewalk. Have you got Dr. Judy Wood's book?
You sound like the "goof" Fetzer by calling everyone with names like a little boy who can't get his way. Fetzer was supposed to be friends with Dr. Wood and then turns around and calls her every ridiculous name he could think of to destroy her credibility and push his idea. What a goof.
You said.... "Your attempts to park understanding at Dr. Wood's book pegs you an agent."
Here we go again.
You said.... "She did poor research into the state of DEW and the state of nuclear weapons, and the Venn diagram that links the two. Therefore, being fair and objective, I will consider what the power source could be."
There are so many things to discuss regarding to pros and cons, your particular "tactical nuke" made that hole in the sidewalk right beside Tower #2. You explain to me how your DEW did that. Have you got the book?
So I'm comparing what you say and what Dr. Wood said about what is found in the dust such as tritium, and the small balls of iron dust and aluminum oxide, which came from the Towers that was made of steel and aluminum siding on the facade.
I'm sure your saying tactical nukes" don't make radiation but at the same time the existing dust is continuing to be reduced into fine powder where the Firemen are walking and resting. there's no heat at those locations but everyone sees the dust fuming and it looks like steam but with no heat. Have you still got her book?
You said..... "You haven't read my works, haven't considered its premise section-by-section, and as an Israeli agent who's half bot, you aren't allowed to."
Sorry Max I was reading and you don't make sense. Now it must be because your so high in intelligence and no-how that I can't figure it out. After all, I'm only a peon who deciphers things that make sense.
Oh!!!! and I'm a Mossad who hasn't received a paycheck yet.
Have you got the book? It's only $39.95 in American coin. If you have, I'll show you the hole in Liberty Street. I'd bring up the picture in facebook but is seems you can't make them out.
x94 Maxwell C. Bridges : Not everything has to be attributed to the exact same cause
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, You claim that I haven't explained a hole in the sidewalk? That is true, because I asked for links to images of this anomaly multiple times, and you haven't coughed them up. I refuse to do your leg work in presenting your case. The ball has been in your court for quite some time, love.
Could the anomaly have been generated by something installed below? Where is this hole with respect to other features of the WTC, such as the vaults below WTC-6 and WTC-7? Strategic centers, like a power or water control?
Doesn't matter, because FGNW is under no obligation to explain this alleged anomaly in the sidewalk, because it could have been some other mechanism. Not everything has to be attributed to the exact same cause. Or worse, not everything has to be attributed to only the mechanisms planted within the towers.
Dr. Wood doesn't write down equations for energy requirements, nor does she power her speculation with anything real-world. Lots of dangling innuendo, and very little connecting of dots or coming to a definitive conclusions.
The above paragraph is damning of both Dr. Wood, but more importantly you, Mr. Gloux. Your refusal to acknowledge these facts, to take Dr. Wood's work further into its logical extensions, and to demonstrate some objectivity in considering both the borrowed evidence from Dr. Wood's work as well as from many other sources that can have other explanations.
Whether or not you're Mossad for your rabid defense of Israel and your lame efforts to part 9/11 understanding in Dr. Wood's cul-de-sac, you're not very objective or sincere.
The sport of conversation with you has lost its allure.
//
x95 Roger Gloux : holes are on Liberty Street
2018-12-05
Maxwell Bridges look on pages 208 and 209. The holes are on Liberty Street outside of Building #2 and just inside the bathtub.
x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : misstating the evidence and purposely hyping "boogey-man radiation"
2018-12-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, thank you for providing the reference pages in Dr. Wood's book to the anomalous holes next to WTC-2 along Liberty Street.
Dr. Wood points out:
- a missing lower portion of a beam.
- three outer columns have a "strange flanged appearance as if they had been unfolded," and they look cooked.
- a three story wall assembly had fallen into the hole to that depth, indicating somewhat its depth.
- the hole is through the sidewalk and pavement.
- the amount of debris that fell into the hole wasn't much compared to other piles of debris.
- describes metal being deformed and dissolved "as if attacked by acid."
- a large amount of material that seemed shredded.
- concrete rebar is exposed.
In an earlier comment from you (that I missed, sorry), you wrote: "You want me to believe nukes can be used without heat or fire." No, because you are misstating the evidence in suggesting it was without heat or fire; Dr. Wood talks about beams having the appearance of "being cooked". Videos shows fireballs at two instances in the decimation of each tower.
You went on to write: "(You want me to believe...) that (there was) no radiation at ground zero." No, because you are again misstating the evidence and purposely hyping "boogey-man radiation" without specifics. The USGS analysis of the dust in its data tables documents Uranium and its decay elements being found; evidence of fission. Tritium was measured; evidence of fusion. Camera scintillation in varous night time NIST videos of the piles documents radiation quite clearly. Alpha, gamma, and beta radiation from the limited amount of fission in the trigger would not be large and could dissipate to safe levels in 48 hours.
You get another ding to your character in that the above proves that after all these YEARS, (a) you still haven't read my article, (b) you aren't allowed to go into its details.
With FGNW being based on neutron devices with tritium fueled fusion, they required a little bit of fission to get to the right energy levels. The FGNW are already rated sub-kiloton or tactical, but that is in total yield. Had you read Dr. Gsponer's referenced estimations, 80% of the yield is in highly energetic neutrons that they aimed upwards and weren't measured in a timely fashion. You should research how a neutron bomb works, and you'll gain great understanding of FGNW.
Consider the effect of highly energetic neutrons depositing their energy deep with the molecular structure of materials. Think what it would do to materials with water content. The very evidence that Dr. Wood draws our attention to can be explained with FGNW.
The heat wave, blast wave, and EMP share their energy from the remaining 20% of the yield. DEW devices aiming their energy upwards in a cone. The area affect by the heat wave is by design scaled down and small.
You wrote: "Radiation is not selective. Everyone would have been radiated but not the 14 survivors in Stairwell B. They walked out and were not crushed by the 110 stories above them."
Ho-hum, Mr. Gloux. I've lost count of how many times you've brought up those firemen and how many times I've answered. For the benefit of lurker readers, the FGNW were aiming their DEW energy upwards. Maybe no FGNW were installed below their position, or maybe it failed. They were outside of the target that the neighboring FGNW were aimed at.
Survivors and first responders had numerous health problems that seemed accelerated from that of the general population. True, radiation isn't selective. Just goes to show that on the continuium from no radiation to high radiation and instant dealth, the radiation dosage received took several years to be terminal.
The EPA lied about the quality of the air. Everyone was lying about the amount of radiation.
+++
Mr. Gloux, inferring from your previous comments, you believe that an ABL (airborne laser) made that hole next to WTC-2. Because a complete wall assembly fell into the hole, it was made before or during the tower's demise, but not after.
Owing to observations above, I think the hole originated in the garages and cleared a conic path above. Given that the holes were at locations in the garage, maybe they were created by left-over devices not yet taken from the vehicles that brought them.
9/11 showcased many technical achievements as they tested interesting devices from the corners of their arsenals. Who's to rule out the mentality that some FGNW were planted in uncritical places (with regards to the overall heist and destruction) with the sole intent of observing the damage. These holes and WTC-4 main edifice come to mind.
You wrote in that earlier comment: "I'm an old drywaller and truck driver that spent too much time searching things that happened on 9/11 and because of checking out all the different concepts of how the Seven Buildings were destroyed, I scratched your concepts of Nukes being used... scratched off of the list."
You scratched nuclear powered DEW off your list when you shouldn't have. But how would "an old drywaller and truck driver" know? Because I've been trying to educate you; if you think you understand Dr. Wood, then you should have the smarts to understand when her work is taken to the next, more realistic level.
You asked: "As for being paid...... where's the money?"
You're retired; you don't need much. Just enough to cover your weekly consumption of various vices.
//
x97 Roger Gloux : supposition to try and corroborate guess
2018-12-09
2018-12-09
Maxwell Bridges you have strange reasoning process. You said...." "You want me to believe nukes can be used without heat or fire." No, because you are misstating the evidence in suggesting it was without heat or fire; Dr. Wood talks about beams having the appearance of "being cooked". Videos shows fireballs at two instances in the decimation of each tower."
We all saw the fireball at the moment of each building starting to turn to dust, right at the spot where the planes were supposed to have hit.
What is interesting to note, one tower had a section above that particular spot leaning 23 degrees and started to go down. We all see this part turn to dust without the fire going up into it.
Once each floor was turning to dust at one floor every 1/10th of a second per floor, we don't see fire anywhere. No fire on the steel sections falling free fall, trailing dust until they disappeared.
You Max also stated your "tactical nukes" didn't produce fire either and were strategically situated near the outside walls aiming toward the middle. That's one strange idea, but also managed to make two deep holes in the sidewalk and pavement in the street. That's strange logic on your part.
Then you said.... ".....Uranium and its decay elements being found; evidence of fission."
If there is "Uranium", what is used to trigger this very dangerous product? What kind of logic have you got to explain each floor turning to dust from the top going down which includes all the heavy thick steel, re-enforced concrete, and office furniture, plus all the glass and ceramic toilets, all done by fission yet not burning the tons of paper strewn all over Manhattan???????
And two separate place we have human beings surviving and not burnt by any radiation or heat by fission. Fourteen people in Stairwell B was not affected nor felt any concussion or fire or heat. Everything above them turned to dust. If there was radiation in that dust, these fourteen people were not affected by it because they are still alive.
Now you want people to believe radiation from "tactical nukes" of the magnitude needed to turn everything into dust, dissipates in 48 hours.
You said.... "Owing to observations above, I think the hole originated in the garages and cleared a conic path above. Given that the holes were at locations in the garage, maybe they were created by left-over devices not yet taken from the vehicles that brought them."
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux This is all supposition to try and corroborate your guess it was "tactical nukes" as you guessed right from the start.
In other words you are starting from your "end game" as you put it, then work backwards and try to bang these square pegs into round holes.
Now you fabricate several trucks in the delivery garage that exploded and made a cone shape holes in the middle of Liberty Street. Of course the first loads of "tactical nuks" were carried up the elevators on every floor so each floor could be destroyed (without fire fission) in 1/0th of a second, without sending steel girders on top of all those domed buildings surrounding the WTC Complex. Lot's of aluminum siding but no steel.
The Bankers Trust building was hit by a piece of outside wall steel and remained hooked into that building. One section of outside steel going across the street to hit the edge of the glass covered building. Other than that, no big steel hit any other building. In fact, the pictures show sidewalks across the street had no debris
You said.... "Because I've been trying to educate you; if you think you understand Dr. Wood, then you should have the smarts to understand when her work is taken to the next, more realistic level."
Like Mark Loizeaux said about Richard Gage's ideas, only in a Bruce Willis Hollywood Movie can you concoct these weird ideas.
As for getting paid by Mossad, you said..... "You're retired; you don't need much. Just enough to cover your weekly consumption of various vices"
So the pay is not there if there is a pittance income????? Not much of an incentive. Like I said, I was a Dry-waller and I did work in high office buildings and all of it is steel studs to which you fasten the drywall. I also made sound proof offices for Lawyers and fastened lead sheets to the concrete floors.
And I did haul heavy steel of every kind when trucking. You and Richard Gage come up with some very weird ideas not backed by any experience of handling of products that are in high-rise buildings. But your an expert on how they are destroyed.
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't chew, and I don't go with girls that do. Cant afford the grief. hehehe (just chuckling)
You should go into making comic books, you have a vivid imagination.
x98 Maxwell C. Bridges : a disinformation trap snapping shut
2018-12-09
Dear Mr. Gloux, I thank you for your response. I think it stands on its own as an excellent example of a disinformation trap snapping shut! Woo-hoo! You win! Bravo! You asked that I speculate into the cause of something I just learned about. After I do, you respond with mocking ridicule of my vivid imagination.
Ouch! That really hurt.
What hurt more was the crink it exposed in your database of responses and the algorithm controlling them. Loved your self-characterization: "I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't chew, and I don't go with girls that do." What's sad, is that this lovely description takes away many of the excuses you could have used to explain the bot-ish nature of your efforts.
Here's an example of a bot reply: "Of course the first loads of "tactical nuks" were carried up the elevators on every floor so each floor could be destroyed (without fire fission) in 1/0th of a second, without sending steel girders on top of all those domed buildings surrounding the WTC Complex. Lot's of aluminum siding but no steel."
Not my premise at all, which suggests 6 to 12 FGNW per tower. My premise is documented in the prerequisite reading material for this discussion, and has had me explain it on more than two carousel spins. For shame for you to so grossly mal-frame the premise with the lie that 110 FGNW would be need per tower!
Looks to me like you tried to re-use one of your patent arguments against chemical-based explosives that "were carried up the elevators on every floor so each floor could be destroyed in 1/0th of a second..."
Glad that we have some agreement that fireballs were recorded in the destruction. A great example of a FGNW ignition. Limited in scope; papers on other levels could have survived. And muted in sound.
Given that these FGNW essentially are what Dr. Wood's research was driving at, it is clear that your bot algorithms prevent learning, improving, and changing your mind. Were it otherwise, you would already be ~at~ FGNW and wouldn't be giving me such a hard time in an agenda-toting kind of a way.
//
x99 Roger Gloux : no "bot-man" nature
2018-12-09
Maxwell Bridges there is no "bot-man" nature. I actually investigate regardless what others say or think.
When somebody started the "Controlled Demolition Concept I was lured to it, but eventually thought this couldn't be because it didn't look like it.Then experts like Mark Loizeaux said it wasn't controlled demolition and explained why it could not be.
This really gets to Richard Gage, who then accuses Mark Loizeaux of being pal-sie with the government because they hired him to bring down big structures. That's the same ploy you use to deride someone. Even though Mark Loizeaux explains it takes months to gut and prepare a building.
I checked all sorts of demolition and none of them destroy the building one floor at a time starting at the top and working down like a fizzle stick used on firecracker day,. the difference is there wasn't any fire.
Then we have the airplane situation of planes flying at 500 miles per hour and aimed perfectly into each tower by men who never sat in a cockpit in their lives. Pilots then explain why this is impossible. The wings would be ripped off at that altitude and speed. No planes hit any building and no plane went into the little ravine in Shanksville because an expert map maker showed this area in a local government picture from City Hall in 1995.
Then we hear all these explosions on 9/11 where Truth and Shadows say these were part of Controlled Demolition and Richard Gage supports this even though Mark Loizeaux the expert says it wasn't. Yet firemen tell us things like Scott Pacs are exploding everywhere and there is no fire to cause them to blow up. Transformers explode and so do gas tanks but we are not supposed to use this as evidence. What then caused them to explode????
I reiterate what you say and then you think that is ridicule. And you do have a vivid imagination to come up with truck loads of FGNW in trucks that explode beneath Liberty Street to explain why that hole is there. Actually there were two holes like seen in the top of Building #6 which according to you would have been set on the main floor bursting upward, but without concussion, to move the things in the open offices, Paper and Books are still in their places. Yet no damage to the main floor.
You said..... "Not my premise at all, which suggests 6 to 12 FGNW per tower."
When did you ever see anything like this, to come up with that idea????? What then turned the falling huge chunks of walls falling towards the ground into dust????? they were not attached to the building and nothing attached to them, yet thy turned to dust before getting to ground level.
You said.... "Glad that we have some agreement that fireballs were recorded in the destruction"
Only at the floor where the first explosion occurred. After that the whole building turned to dust without any fire.Remember, there was a woman waving her white jacket from the hole so there wasn't any fire at that time and hardly any smoke.
You said.... "Given that these FGNW essentially are what Dr. Wood's research was driving at,"
Not at all and she said so, if you would actually read and not just look at "some" pictures. No, she is more into the "Electro Magnetic Field" type of weapon that can be aimed, similar but not the same as a laser.
Actually the same kind of things John Hutchison was doing with radio frequencies that caused solid square iron to bend like it was putty but with no heat. Like on pages 380-381.
You said .... "....it is clear that your bot algorithms prevent learning, improving, and changing your mind."
Hahaha yeah right. I've changed several times already, and then I compare what you write and Dr. Wood's Book an your not in the same class. You a "wanna be", whereas she investigated everything. You keep changing from heat to no heat and fire and no fire. You come up with radiation that disapates in 48 hours.
You just don't make sense, your like Fetzer in so many ways.
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : "actually investigate" is not true
2018-12-09
Dear Mr. Gloux, your lead-in suggests that you have no bot nature and that you "actually investigate regardless what others say or think." Too bad this is not true, as is demonstrated by your missing detailed responses to my FGNW. Then as now, you think that discussing controlled demolition (with chemical means ala Mark Loizeaux) is a way of addressing FGNW. It isn't.
I've been trying to respond to your response paragraph by paragraph, but most of them are inapplicable to FGNW, so why bother?
Then you take a deviation into the physics of planes and get it completely wrong, and lie about your source: "Pilots then explain why this is impossible. The wings would be ripped off at that altitude and speed." What makes you thinks that the physics of planes flying 500 mph would result in wings be ripped off, as opposed to shattered?
Then you go into Richard Gage, who does not as much acknowledge the existence of FGNW, much less their usage on 9/11. Totally inapplicable to this conversation, because your database isn't that great and has nothing on FGNW. The bot makes due with the garbage it is fed, but doesn't make sense.
Your algorithms plop out Scott Pacs -- again, ho-hum -- as if it hasn't been addressed. Characterize better how they were exploding, why don't you? Was it a value giving way, or did the whole tank explode sending shrapnel everywhere.
FYI, Dr. Wood drops these Scott Pacs as dangling innuendo, but doesn't explain how her devices would account for the anomaly. Were she to do so, she'd be describing FGNW.
Liar, I never wrote: "truck loads of FGNW in trucks that explode beneath Liberty Street to explain why that hole is there." I wrote that for all we know, the truck that delivered the FGNW to the towers had an extra one that didn't get installed but went off from there. It doesn't matter, except to prove how thorough the operation.
Liar, I never wrote: WTC-6 "would have been set on the main floor bursting upward, but without concussion, to move the things in the open offices, Paper and Books are still in their places. Yet no damage to the main floor."
Your usage of the "concussion" demonstrates again that you haven't read my work, which then puts the lie taint on your opening paragraph. "Concussion" might be applicable if the destructive waves were sudden changes in air pressure, as if talking about conventional chemical explosives. Alas, FGNW emit their neutrons which might heat the air through which they travel, but which deposit their energy within the atomic structure of the materials they pass through. Instant volume heating can rip apart materials (like drywall, concrete) to dust; it can cause large steel beams to sag, and lesser beams to ablate.
The nature of FGNW and their yields explain why this would be possible. Had you studied Dr. Wood's innuendo more and then done your own research to augment that effort, you would see the applicability of FGNW as being the devices Dr. Wood hints at but doesn't get to.
Yes, "no damage to the main floor" because nothing was aimed at it from above or below.
You asked: "What then turned the falling huge chunks of walls falling towards the ground into dust?"
Already mentioned. FGNW deposit their energies deep with the materials, causing some of them to ablate immediately. When the wall assemblies were ejected sideways, what was rolling off of them was steam and dust from materials that were fixed to them.
What is funny, is that if you were to suss out of Dr. Wood's work some explanation (that she doesn't provide) relating to DEW, it would apply to FGNW which can at least account for the energy required.
I wrote: "... these FGNW essentially are what Dr. Wood's research was driving at..."
You replied: "Not at all and she said so."
Dr. Wood told her readers to look at the evidence and see what it is saying, and not necessary at what other people (including her) were saying about the evidence. Guess you missed that part. It was such a great quote, they made stickers with that and put it on my inside cover.
Further, nothing about FGNW prevents it from being tweaked to emit more EMP, which already is a side-effect and part of the yield. Ergo, to exclude FGNW as you do is wrong and game playing.
You wrote another blatant lie with: "she investigated everything." No, Dr. Wood didn't. Her DEW research, were it not so poor, would have brought her to the conclusion that beams from space (how she let her work get mal-framed) had optics and energy sources as two crippling stumbling blocks. ABL is similar. She never calculated the energy required to turn concrete into dust across the entire length and width and floor by floor. This calculation would have netted such energies that were beyond the payloads of ABL aircraft to carry. (And this is before we observe the destruction began from within, not at the very top.)
Dr. Wood's nuclear research is even worse than here DEW research. How could she not have come across Dr. Andre Gsponer and his decade of effort before 9/11?
FGNW had heat, but localized. It had fire, but localized. The highly energetic neutrons when they were expelled weren't localized. And yes, owing to the neutron nature of these FGNW, most of the measurable radiation wasn't generated and didn't linger... And then they lied to us about what was measured and its safety.
I repeat my complaints against you. You are needlessly stuck in Dr. Wood's disinformation, too stubborn to admit the weaknesses in her efforts, and too agenda-toting to take her clues to the next level. You don't understand her work, and you haven't read mine, which you stiltedly continue to fail to understand.
A bot by any other name would be Israeli troll, you are.
"You just don't make sense, your like Fetzer in so many ways."
//
x101 Roger Gloux : fit everything to fit that concept
2018-12-09
Maxwell Bridges I read Dr. Wood's Book several times because of the vast amount of information. You on the other hand start off with "nukes" then try to fit everything to fit that concept.
About the "planes" you said..... "What makes you thinks that the physics of planes flying 500 mph would result in wings be ripped off, as opposed to shattered?"
Because of videos that reveal this is what happens. Even a C130 carrying water for a forest fire came in too fast and the pressure on the wings just ripped them off with most of it in big pieces. They are very flimsy light weight construction.
The same applies to Passenger Jets. The only time you can go at 500 mph is when your high up where the air is thin. On top of that you can't steer a plane at that speed because of the thickness of the air at that speed.
The relevance of these facts is NO PLANES hit any buildings.
So whatever product that was used to cause the big explosion had a lot of liquid diesel fuel set off. Jet fuel is diesel without the paraffin wax. Winter diesel is actually stove oil with less paraffin wax. Furnace oil is summer diesel. That fire only lasted a couple of seconds.
Then we have the "jumpers" coming out of the Towers. Whatever it was that was prepping the building, was burning the people before the destruction. Just like a micro-wave in your kitchens burns the skin.
This is not relevant to you because your "nukes" (whatever generation) can't do that. There were 1,400 "jumpers" splatting on the sidewalk, just like watermelons. Something was causing them to squeeze into those small windows and some were ejected, landing a long ways away from the building, not by explosions but something else at play here.
You said.... "I repeat my complaints against you. You are needlessly stuck in Dr. Wood's disinformation, too stubborn to admit the weaknesses in her efforts,....."
Rather then just looking at one aspect of what Dr. Wood has said, you have to look at everything she said to fit together like a puzzle. Like what was causing these buildings to "froth" like smoke the whole height of each of the three towers before they started to turn to dust in 9 seconds.
From the time of the initial explosion the building started to froth from places there was NO fire to the time it turned to dust. It only happened on one side of the buildings.
That's what it was doing. She doesn't know what was causing this but appears to be like what Hutchison discovered.
Do "tactical nukes" make the whole building "froth" from one side only for one hour on the Towers and five hours on Building #7?
Anybody can come up with any idea on Wikipedia but not Doc. Wood. She was cut off in 12 hours. On the other hand you can put up any wild idea about "nukes" and that is accepted. Seems like Doc. Wood hit a raw nerve.
Truth and Shadows was cut off because it was causing people to investigate. Anyone who investigates comes to the conclusion our own Government (USA) was behind it all. It was a false flag, used to go and get the resources of Iraq. The buildings that were destroyed housed all the crookery that the US government employed to steal the money in the Stock Market and Enron's investments in infra structure in other countries, which was in Building #7.
Rumsfeld declared the CIA misplace 2.3 Trillion Dollars on Sept 10/01.
On 9/11, 35 people who were accountants, were killed in the Pentagon explosion, along with all the info about that missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars. Like Craig Mckee said and proved, no planes did this.
You said.... "She never calculated the energy required to turn concrete into dust across the entire length and width and floor by floor. This calculation would have netted such energies that were beyond the payloads of ABL aircraft to carry. (And this is before we observe the destruction began from within, not at the very top.)"
What do you think caused the square iron bar to bend and disintegrate in the Hutchison demonstration? NO lasers involved and no heat.
Throughout your concept of "tactical nukes" you state "heat and steam" yet the dust at ground level was cooler then the ambient air, according to the people who were caught in the dust cloud.
You keep using ABL as if this is a FACT when all it is used for is the Government has something on the nose f aircraft that can be directed. There are huge buildings used in the manufacture of lasers in California. What is used on aircraft is something else, but whatever it is, it is directed like a laser.
You have no idea what the government has and what energy is used to turn building into dust. But you want to measure it. How do you measure radio waves that Hutchison uses to make items disintegrate and change it's features??????
The US Government paid Hutchison $25,000:00 to show them what he was doing. They wanted to see iron turn into disintegrating material and bend but without heat. So they learned something.
You on the other hand refuse to accept it is being done, even if you watch it.
x102 Maxwell C. Bridges : a re-purposed criticism
2018-12-09
Dear Mr. Gloux, you claim that you read Dr. Wood's book several times, yet (a) you do not acknowledge the weaknesses of her work, (b) you haven't given my work the courtesy of a single read.
Your algorithms deposit this gem: "You on the other hand start off with "nukes" then try to fit everything to fit that concept." Too bad it isn't true, and must be a re-purposed criticism aimed at you with "nukes" replaced by "Dr. Wood" in the original.
The most you can conclude with your airplane distraction (with no links, so I'm not even sure the C130 example is valid) is that the aircraft at the WTC were not the alleged commercial aircraft, otherwise their wings would have ripped off, eh? Swapped out, souped up military planes could do it.
You know how to get to my blog. Although not my hobby-horse, I have had the opportunity to debunk no planes at the WTC several times, and postings such re-purposed discussions are available.
Want to know what inspired the jumpers? If we speculate that one or more pulsing FGNW were dropped down the elevator shafts, then maybe the ramp-up to full yield was emitting sufficient alpha radiation to make it uncomfortable to be inside. Ouch, FGNW is in the category of DEW.
I dispute your claimes of "1,400 jumpers splatting on the sidewalk. The number is much less. You wrote: "Something was causing them to squeeze into those small windows and some were ejected, landing a long ways away from the building, not by explosions but something else at play here."
Something? What could it be? A FGNW ramping up?
Clearly from arguments, you are again re-purposing text aimed at someone supporting conventional controlled demolition in order to convince them of your DEW premise.
I'll accept that evidence and point out again, FGNW is in the category of DEW. Ergo, you should already be in the FGNW camp.
The frothing you speak of I believe came from the late summer heat and reflections off of other buildings. I think this is disinformation.
However for the sake of discussions, did the frothing happen on the Libery Street side, where we know from the hole in the sidewalk that something beamed its out? And I speculated that a left-over FGNW in a truck but with ignition still enabled. I know I am wrong; probably wasn't in a truck, either. Doesn't mean it wasn't FGNW.
The reason I don't often use the phrase "tactical nukes" and instead FGNW, is because bot algorithms such as yours start assigning definitions and characteristics to ot based on half a century of nuclear hype and fear-mongering.
You are wrong about "wild ideas about FGNW being accepted" or being easy to find in Wikipedia. Got Israeli trolls like you calling it "wild ideas". The only two reasons why Dr. Wood's work gets punished: (1) It is closest to the real causes, FGNW. (2) It is disinformation made clear by the dangling innuendo, not connecting the dots, not having a conclusion, not going into FGNW in any legitimate way, and propping up cold-fusion confusion.
What did Hutchison power his demonstrations with? Scale that up. What powered it? Hutchison is at best dangling innuendo that doesn't apply.
Sagging beams, high percentage of iron spheres in the dust, and other things that got hot and burned off what was on them, prove that the destruction had heat. The issue is that the highly energetic neutrons got things like metal so hot so quickly, the metal could burned things. But this is different than a fireball from explosives.
But again, I point out that Dr. Wood has no calculations on energy required, which in turn extrapolates to quantities of chemicals for ABL.
I say the neutron cone emission was mostly contained within the outer wall assemblies of the towers, but did graze them. They could heat up and suddenly spandrels are pliable and allows for formation of the steel doobies. Enough energy deposited within to heat the wall assemblies that in turn burned or steamed off what touched them.
The dust cloud had a cooling distance through ambient air before it reached people. Given that the dust cloud blocked the sun, yes, being inside of it could be cooler than in ambient air and sunshine.
Loved your ABL game. When I pressured you to explain the implementation of Dr. Wood's supposed DEW, you implied either ABL or from satellites that caused the hole in the sidewalk. Now you're saying it wasn't?
I researched ABL / satellite DEW and found them inapplicable to 9/11 at the towers.
This latest Gloux carousel spin got me sick.
https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876?fbclid=IwAR3qRqNsJeVWAQjy4nLS2F8HIsF_36mb4U_OYK8XJ5N7p8XW23DkqlqpTmE
//
x103 Roger Gloux : send rockets into Israel
2018-12-09
Let me ask you something Max, what is the prime objective of the Palestinians also known as the Philistines?
Did you know Hamas is an organization of Egyptians who take the money sent to Palestinians and use it to send rockets into Israel. The Palestinians need infrastructure but can't build it because Hamas takes the money, because they run Gaza for the Palestinians. Who is it that pays for the tunnels going under the fence to get into Israel?
The purpose of the tunnels from Gaza into Israel is to infiltrate to kill the Israelis, whether man, woman or child. Who pays for these expensive tunnels?
Iran Pays for terrorism into Israel. If Israel retaliates they are called the aggressor against the Palestinians.
The last barrage of rockets (460) into Israel, killed a Palestinian living in Israel.If you dare to enter a Palestinian neighborhood in Israel, you may lose your life.
Palestinians did a drive by shooting at a bus stop.....
https://www.timesofisrael.com/condition-of-baby.../...
Condition of baby, delivered after mother shot in terror attack, deteriorates
timesofisrael.com
Condition of baby, delivered after mother shot in terror attack,…
Condition of baby, delivered after mother shot in terror attack, deteriorates
x104 Maxwell C. Bridges : pro-Israel propaganda
2018-12-09
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, Bravo on the pro-Israel propaganda and solidifying the view of your agenda.
Bottom-line: It is a human rights crisis and war crimes that are being committed by Israel first that inspires a desperate people to seek weapons from others, who for other reasons have reason to despise Israel. And with events closer to home, have sour on Israel, too.
The effectiveness of the propaganda that you promote is revealing in two other aspects. First, is that a fuzzy data point about Israeli involvement in 9/11 becomes more fixed. They are the ideal patsy-runners and overseers, which they turned out to be.
Second, dear Mr. Gloux, your feeble efforts to brush off Israeli 9/11 involvement, to defend the weaknesses of Dr. Wood's work, to stall taking her work to the next level via FGNW, to throw in the disinfo of NPT @ WTC, to paste inapplicable canned responses to FGNW, to go in circles over topics that previous conversations handled and acting as if we had never discussed them... Well, it doesn't support the case that you aren't an agent.
I'm not paid to post, and grow tired of such games. But sometimes it is necessary in order to know the sincerity of whom we are dealing.
//
x105 Roger Gloux : hook in to many of the news outlets in the Middle East
2018-12-09
Maxwell Bridges you are a narrow minded individual. I hook in to many of the news outlets in the Middle East to get information from both sides.
You reveal your ignorance about Israel and the Philistines/Palestinians and who these people are.
You remain ignorant because you don't want to know.
A little tiny Country like Israel who are doing their best to protect themselves from the onslaught of the Arabs and Egyptian/Hamas, Persians/Iran and of course the Palestinians/Philistine who never owned that Land.
You figure they did 9/11 when they can barely protect themselves.
You said.... "Bottom-line: It is a human rights crisis and war crimes that are being committed by Israel...."
Like what?????
You said.... " ...who for other reasons have reason to despise Israel."
What are these reasons?????
A whole Nation of people comprising of 13 Tribes lived on that Land and your upset because they got a small portion of what they used to have?????
This Nation was called Israel. One of those 13 Tribes is called "jews" and you are bent on going after them for who knows what reason. You yourself come from one of those Tribes only you don't know it. How do I know???? Because I traced their footsteps and where they went. The history is there, but you have to dig it out.
You said.... "....your feeble efforts to brush off Israeli 9/11 involvement, to defend the weaknesses of Dr. Wood's work,..."
Wait a minute, it's Israeli or it's "Jew" one of the two. Do you know why they are called "Jew"????? I know you can't answer that because you haven't a clue. What makes a "Jew" a Jew???? You don't know but you hate their guts and have no idea who they are. STRANGE.... Max.
You think you are right concerning your Mini Nukes even though it doesn't make sense.... but you somehow contort it to make sense in your mind. Read pages 372-373 about tritium.
It is interesting to have this chat with you just to see how twisted you are. I've never been to Israel and don't want to go there about the same as going to an all black neighborhood in New York.... it's not a healthy place to be. But you say I am Mossad. Your nuts.
Though you have a good command of the English language, your much like having a conversation with a mentally handicap person. I think you have a short circuit and you can't help it.
+++
x106 Maxwell C. Bridges : Israeli scholar in several canned paste-jobs
2018-12-09
Dear Mr. Gloux, you call me narrow-minded? I'm not the one plugging an agenda for Israel, stopped in Dr. Wood's "not an end-station," and throwing out disinformation diversions into NPT. You are. The agenda alone that isn't your own demonstrates how open-minded you are: not very.
I write that war crimes are being committed by Israel, and you act the innocent in your reply "LIKE WHAT???" I wrote that other nations in the region have reasons to despise Israel, and again with the act in your reply: "What are these reasons?????"
For being such the Israeli scholar in your several canned paste-jobs, the fact that you can't or won't answer your own questions pulls a flag on the play about your sincerity, truthfulness, and research thoroughness.
And then, ever the Mossad Disinfo Agent, you start sliding the nomenclature from Mossad & Israeli to be "Jewish", because the next disinfo card you want to play is "anti-semetism" against me, but you have to set it up first.
You know what I don't see on pages 372-373? No mention of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons, or even Dr. Andre Gsponer who'd been writing about such for a cool decade before Dr. Wood posted this information on her website. That she would re-purpose it without enhancement or fixing of errors into her book, not a good sign for its veracity.
And while we're referencing these pages that show re-purposed measurements from a flawed report that was scope-limited into considering only building content as the source for the tritium measured, let us not forget that the shoddy & delayed measuring of tritium may have been good enough for the purposes of the original stilted report, it is by far woefully inadequate to give the complete story about what tritium was present.
Consider this a huge boner flag into the disinfo that Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones) conspired to spread: unchallenged and unquestioned.
Further, I've already boasted about researching DEW beyond the innuendo dropped by Dr. Wood. Nuclear devices as well. I've even dived into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), called cold fusion. Ain't operational at the scale required for the observed destruction today; wasn't operational then.
Point is, most of the PhD's in the 9/11 Truth Movement had the purpose of serving as an end-point for research, with the public assuming that these doctorates would demonstrate thorough researching abilities into these technical subjects. That assumptions goes with the public myth being created about 9/11. The sad part isn't just that the assumptions of researcher thoroughness are wrong, but that YOU, Mr. Gloux, won't admit it.
You're beaten; your Dr. Wood end-station is beaten. You're exposed as an agent beholden to an agenda. Your only hope is to instigate a flame war.
Mr. Gloux, you are losing your educational value as well as your entertainment value in discussions with me. I suggest you engage with others. I no longer have the patience.
//
x107 Roger Gloux : something else that is more efficient
2018-12-09
2018-12-11
Max why use "nukes" when you would have something else that is more efficient and not so "dirty"?????
Besides your "tactical nukes" produce heat and what you see in the picture didn't have heat involved, else the paper book would have been burned. Yet it is fused into the steel.
x108 Maxwell C. Bridges : lodged in Dr. Wood's non-end-station
2018-12-09
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, nice game play, but no goal. First of all, you haven't proved that they used something clean, despite being lodged in Dr. Wood's non-end-station.
Secondly, the USGS documents in its tables Uranium and its decay elements; there was a whole tritium circus of a report; Dr. Cahill measured months later particles in the air that indicated a continually heating process was going on in the WTC rubble.
Wrap your head around the concept of "at the point of ignition", "within the path of the output beam", and "outside the path of the output beam." You conflate effects of one with that of all other in a classic straw-man fashion.
Dive into the piece, and point out its errors. Or just to get you to read it, why don't you identify everything I might have re-used from Dr. Wood so that you'd have something agreeable to say.
//
x109 Roger Gloux : trying to make self smart
2018-12-20
2018-12-20
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Walter Siegrist Actually is was short, I just wanted to hit the high spots so you would at least have some knowledge of what has happened and what to expect but most of all where people (nations) actually came from. Most folks have no clue and try the DNA thing. Of course if a "expert" has no clues as to the history and "who is who", the information is based on ignorance.
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Maxwell Bridges there you go again, trying to make yourself smart by saying.... " that was a copy-and-paste from somewhere"..... HUH??????
I just rattled it off from memory and the only thing I did copy and paste was on the "Siegrist" name.
Max, Max, Max take off the metal noodle strainer off your head and think.
Regarding the last line in the meme, first you have to know what a Gentile is and the difference between a "Jew" and a person from the ancestry of Israel.
There is a movement trying for WORLD DOMINION as President Busch Senior and and President Johnson pointed out in the 60's. I'm not disputing that, even the Muslims are trying for that as is Russia and China.
Right now the USA has the majority of POWER to pull it off, providing the world on a whole doesn't go against it at the same time. If that happens we will see how far the secret technology has gone that can turn buildings into powder without heat. At present the USA is flat assed broke and just keep printing out worthless paper money. As long as the US dollar is used to buy oil in OPEC it will continue. The day the "world" refuses the US dollar in OPEC, is the day the US will crash starting with the Banks. But..... the thing the world Leaders are concerned about is not Nuclear explosives, it is concerned with the weapon that destroyed seven Buildings in New York. Considering it can be "aimed", they wont push too hard.
In the meantime the USA is showing what it has done with "lasers" but not the other "thing" that Dr. Judy Wood is talking about. Unfortunately for you, you follow the "Fetzer" thing and don't see what Dr. Judy Wood is talking about. Your like Craig Mckee who looked at a few pages and dismissed it. You can't explain why the Bankers Trust Building had to be torn down because of on-going rust inside the building. Only one piece of the outside façade of the Tower hit the building but something was going on inside the building that after ten years the building had to be torn down. Nukes of any kind don't do that, especially after ten years. You can bet and win, the Leaders in this world are aware there is something very powerful they don't have and are afraid of.
The USA is crashing on all fronts financially. When the final crash occurs it will topple all the Banks in domino effect. The only thing left will be "weapons".
All of what I wrote in these posts is concerning who is the USA and the UK??? This also includes the other North Western European Nations.
You yourself are from one of these Nations, so guess what your ancestry is. LOL
x110 Maxwell C. Bridges : data points do not deviate
2018-12-20
Dear Mr. Gloux, the data points from your last comment do not deviate much from the trend line already established from you.
I particularly liked the insightful comment: "Max, Max, Max take off the metal noodle strainer off your head and think." Kind of like when you borrow someone's meme and post it elsewhere, this reeks of an insult someone threw at you that you'll repurpose against me. Bravo.
You wrote: "Right now the USA has the majority of POWER to pull it off, providing the world on a whole doesn't go against it at the same time."
Assuming that "pull it off" refers to 9/11, it is true that the USA has the ability from its arsenals and its agencies' skill sets to pull off what was observed, but few of those agencies can muster the critical mass of conspiratorial willingness to inflict such damage. Doesn't take many boots-to-the-ground patriotic whistleblowers to foul this action against the citizens of the USA.
Therefore, if the operation can be outsourced to circumvent patriotism and duty from exposing it, then Israel is the likely agency, and this is what is proven to be true.
You continued: "If that happens we will see how far the secret technology has gone that can turn buildings into powder without heat."
You are spreading disinformation with your mischaracterization of WTC 9/11 features: "buildings (turning) into powder without heat."
Heat was present, and it is a deceitful to suggest otherwise. The tiny iron spheres found in significant quantities in the dust disproves this lame assertion that you repeat. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots disproves this assertion. Lots of evidence disproves this assertion.
Because you regularly copy and paste from discussions with those championing NT, you bring up facets of conventional explosions (e.g., pressure wave through air, fireball) as a strawman to go after FGNW, but it won't be so.
The delivery of the heat was unconventional, because the highly energetic neutrons deposited energy deep with the atomic structure of the materials they passed through. Once there, it did spectacular things, like volume heating of large steel beams to get them to sag, like ablating of thin pieces. Things with residual water content, like drywall, porcelain, humans, etc. experienced that water turning instantly to high temperature steam, whose expanding volumetric pressure turned such content to dust.
The stubborness that keeps you planted in Dr. Wood's non-conclusions exposes your lack of objectiveness and sincerity, because FGNW are the natural extension and logical conclusions that Dr. Wood should have come to.
You wrote: "the thing the world Leaders are concerned about is not Nuclear explosives, it is concerned with the weapon that destroyed seven Buildings in New York."
That's wrong. "Nuclear explosives?" Use the right term: FGNW. If less than 20% of their yield is in traditional shock waves and heat waves, then they don't fit into the category of "explosives" but of DEW. It was the 80% of the directed energy as highly energetic neutrons that achieved wonders that you attribute to Dr. Wood's vague theories.
I came to my nuclear conclusions independently of Dr. James Fetzer, and in many ways my FGNW explain the outcome better.
You wrote: (you) "don't see what Dr. Judy Wood is talking about." Not true, Mr. Gloux. I understand Dr. Wood's work, its limits, and its weaknesses clearly far better than you, because you won't even acknowledge them: lots of dangling innuendo, nothing real world, shoddy nuclear research, and NO CONCLUSIONS.
You wrote: "Your like Craig Mckee who looked at a few pages and dismissed it." Reverting to your bot-ish ways, I see, and your inability to remember details of past discussions. Ho-hum, I read her book cover-to-cover and have revisited many sections many times. I dismiss it because of the reasons already given that your Mossad agenda won't let you see.
You wrote: "You can't explain why the Bankers Trust Building had to be torn down because of on-going rust inside the building.... Nukes of any kind don't do that, especially after ten years."
Not true in the least. The above lie proves (a) you haven't read my works, (b) you don't remember our exchanges, (c)_ you are copying & pasting from discussions aimed at conventional explosives and not FGNW. The neutron bombardment from FGNW does indeed explain that, and embrittlement.
Section 25. Embrittlement.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#25
Your favorite tactic is circle back to Dr. Wood's non-conclusive work, rather than exploring my work that I claim builds upon and expands her efforts.
So I once again proclaimeth thou to be Mossad agent/bot.
//
x111 Maxwell C. Bridges : memorial pools are radiation mitigation technique
2018-12-28
2018-12-28
The memorial pools are a classic radiation mitigation technique. //
x112 Lawrence Fine : away from the source
2018-12-28
Maxwell Bridges keep people away from the source and bury the evidence of those events - DEEP.
x113 Roger Gloux : that's not steam
2018-12-28
Maxwell Bridges a classical mitigation technique?????
Show me some that gave you this clue.
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Lawrence Fine that's not steam. Look below the bucket on the orange hoe, that's more like the fumes the first responder's were walking in and all it was is dust on the road.
Look at the yellow hoe where the fumes is between the tracks. If that was steam, the operator would feel the heat.he can't back up, so would have to turn the tracks away and move. that's a heavy hoe. If it was smoke, they would be in trouble because smoke makes you tear and cough and you would choke and they couldn't do their job.
Nobody drives an expensive machine that works off of hydraulics into a fire.
x114 Maxwell C. Bridges : steam coming off
2018-12-28
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I have done my nuclear research and published my findings. Yes, there are several radiation mitigation techniques used at the WTC, including hauling in fresh dirt, spreading it around, and a few days later scooping it up to cart away; repeat. Hosing things down with water is another classic. If a location can't be completely free of lingering radiation, building a water-filled reflecting pool on top would help the badness from radiating up.
If you doubt this technique, I suggest you do your homework that disputes this.
To the point about steam coming off, Mr. Lawrence Fine we should recall one of the stark findings from Dr. Cahill who came a month late and measured the air quality for another couple months.
"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."
//
x115 Roger Gloux : all the fumes coming from the dust
2018-12-28
Maxwell Bridges your well aware of all the fumes coming from the dust because the First Responders were sitting and walking in it on the street. There was no heat down the street from the complex but the dust was fuming.
You already said it takes heat to get these FGNukes to "go off" yet there is no heat on the streets and the dust is fuming.
The only thing that was not affected was paper and some aluminum siding. If it was hot FGNW blowing up, it would burn the paper, yet wherever you look, there is tons of paper in the dust. Just like when a person burns the chicken in the microwave and the paper plate is not affected.
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : dust sitting on top of something that was hot
2018-12-28
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux-bot, Regarding "fumes coming from the dust", you'll have to be more specific.
In the examples you provide, ask yourself if the dust might be sitting on top of something that was hot, like food particles dropped onto an electric stove element that is hot but cooling?
Because of the ratio of surface area to mass of the dust (and rubble), they would have been more affected by air resistance than cohesive pieces of wall assemblies. As such and as observed, much dust trailed heavier pieces of falling steel and even lingered and descended slowly. Therefore, it is only natural that many heavier pieces of steel might be present but buried under rubble and dust.
The FGNW scenario suggests that cone shaped DEW output of highly energetic neutrons grazed some and went through others of the wall assemblies. Those hit instantly heat. Like a burner on an electric stove on high touching a plastic spoon (spoon ~starts~ getting affected), things normally attached to the wall assemblies would be affected. Wall assemblies in free-fall that seemed to "smoke or steam off" a trail of dusty smoke steam is what this might look like.
After these pieces hit the ground, dust and content that were slowed by air resistance fell on top. The pieces being hot but cooling, the dust on top would appear to fume, just like food dropped on a kitchen electric element.
Let us turn our attention to metal filing cabinets which, together with other office furnishings, are woefully under-represented in the debris pile. When the highly energetic neutrons passed through the thin sheet metal of the filing cabinets, the metal heated so fast that it ablated, melted, and sent hot blobs of its metals into the air.
The highly energetic neutrons would pass through the paper but not leave vasts amounts of energy in its simpler molecular structure (e.g., non metal.) The paper doesn't ignite from the bombardment.
But wait! The paper is right next to a hot fragment of the metal file cabinet. Does the paper ignite? Depends on how long they remain in contact and the ignition temperature of paper versus the now-cooling blob of metal in the turmoil of the destruction and falling to the ground.
In other words with FGNW, lots of ignited paper falling over the WTC isn't to be expected, because they would have had insufficient sustained contact with heat sources capable of ignition.
Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) are next-level that Dr. Wood's work needs to be taken to.
//
x117 Roger Gloux : Pictures are better then words
2018-12-28
2018-12-28
Sam Haschets Pictures are better then words. People like yourself say the big steel square tubes with 6 inch steel went into the basement and these weigh in excess of 25 ton per 35 f. lengths and ther were 47 of them. Look at the basement when it is cleared out. The wall your looking at is the bath tub that holds out the Hudson River, if it broke the water would have flooded Manhattan. Those two square holes is the train tunnel going each way. Where is the damage in this concrete????
Image may contain: sky and outdoor
Sam Haschets
Sam Haschets Roger Gloux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8
YOUTUBE.COM
Directed Energy Weapons? LOL! Dr Greg Jenkins Destroys…
x118 Maxwell C. Bridges : both Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins were pushing some disinformation
2018-12-28
Dear Mr. Sam Haschets, the interesting thing about that video is that both Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins were pushing some disinformation. Dr. Jenkins is one of Dr. Jones' crew.
The characterization of ~all~ the steel being vaporized or turned to dust is an indication of the disinfo, because clearly the debris piles exhibit plenty of steel. The proper characterization first recognizes the type of steel not found in the piles: namely the pans and trusses that supported the concrete at each floor, thin metal. These being thin and directly in the line of fire of highly energetic neutrons from FGNW were ablated, which is akin to vaporization. Other materials with residual water content could not withstand the internal pressure of that water instantly turning to steam. This gives us the dust.
Dr. Jenkins purposely mischaracterizes the amount of steel missing and energy required to vaporize, likens it to the surface of the sun, and never recognizes that FGNW complete the picture.
//
x119 Sam Haschets, Roger Gloux : moving the goal posts
2018-12-28
Sam Haschets You are moving the goal posts
Roger Gloux Maxwell Bridges what disinformation did Dr. Judy Wood give?
Sam Haschets Maxwell Bridges Judy wood and her I'll claim steel turned to dust
x120 Maxwell C. Bridges : explained many times only to have its algorithms repeat the same tired refrains
2018-12-28
Dear Mr. Sam Haschets, funny how Mr. Roger Gloux plays coy about the disinformation given by Dr. Judy Wood. I've explained ~many~ times before to the Gloux-Mossad-bot only to have its algorithms repeat the same tired refrains. Included in Dr. Wood's disinformation are lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, and very shitty research into nuclear means. FGNW are the natural extension of her work, and power its effects with real-world state-of-the-art nuclear devices. How could she have missed Dr. Andre Gsponer's work?
These deficits are practically understandable when suppressing truth in a disinformation work. Even incomplete, they can be pardoned because they do get us closer to truth.
What can't be so easily excused are the Gloux-bot hard-liners who cannot publicly acknowledge these deficiencies, always cycle discussions back to incomplete Woodsian premises, and cannot objectively review work that goes beyond the dead-end they are charged with poorly defending.
A disinformation technique is to conflate effects or evidence of one thing with another. In the DEW paradigm, what happens to things in the line of fire are not the same as those just grazed or close to the ignition points.
Steel pans and trusses that held concrete floors? Drywall, concrete, porcelain? Not well represented in the debris pile as cohesive pieces, let alone wholes, while the outer wall assemblies and inner core are.
//
x121 Roger Gloux : Dr. Judy Wood compiled evidence
2018-12-28
Maxwell Bridges Dr. Judy Wood compiled evidence. You didn't. But you figured out it has to be FGNW that doesn't produce fire as each floor turned to dust in 1/10th of a second.... starting from the top going down. BUTTTT... it requires heat to set this stuff off all in 1/10th of a second per floor. It didn't evaporate because that requires heat, and the dust was cool. Everybody caught in the dust cloud said the dust was cooler than the air. None felt any heat. None were burned.
You stated the FGNW were placed every 6 to 12 floors apart but each floor turned to dust in 1/10th of a second.
Most of the 47 inner core steel girders turned to dust. Very few of those girders is in the debris.
As for the outside façade, most of that turned to dust but much of the aluminum siding that covered it was on the roofs of the surrounding buildings and in the streets. There is no damage to the domes on the buildings surrounding the complex so no steel hit them but lots of aluminum scattered everywhere.
In your last paragraph you figure the ceramic toilets and sinks were all broken in the debris yet the responders stated there was none. No steel cabinets survived either except one all distorted with paper files sticking out. Obviously no heat was involved because the paper wasn't even burnt or singed.
Like Dr. Judy Wood stated, "if you say a person was shot, there better be a hole in the body "
You disregard evidence but come to a conclusion it was FGNW that were not hot enough to burn paper but turned steel into dust including the concrete. Most of the debris didn't cover the sidewalk across the street. One spandrel got caught in the Bnkers trust building and one long section of spandrel went across the corner and hit the glass Winter Garden......
Roger Gloux
Roger Gloux Maxwell Bridges wheres the steel?....
x122 Maxwell C. Bridges : again fail to acknowledge the weaknesses of her work
2018-12-28
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux-bot, it is true that Dr. Wood compiled evidence. But just like I called you on your fake "playing coy" before, I'll call you on your lame defense of Wood's premise while attacking FGNW, because again you fail to acknowledge the weaknesses of her work that necessitate rational & objective seekers of truth continue beyond. Such a Mossad agent you are.
Exhibit A is your assumption of "fire" and that FGNW would produce such (in great quantities). When you heat water on an electric stove and it evaporates, does it mean there was fire? No. But of course, if you leave that electric burner turned on, various cooking utensils near it can become deformed and even charred without there having been a fire (until maybe the utensil itself reached an ignition temperature.)
Among the evidence collected by Dr. Wood were beams that she called "arches", which is itself an example of her disinformation. Why? Because she should have properly named some of them "sags", because they were volume heated end-to-end as if by a foundry but much faster, thus weakened, and being fixed at the ends sagged under the force of gravity."
FGNW explains the volume heating of steel beams by having been bombarded by highly energetic neutrons from a FGNW, which deposit their energy deep within the entire molecular structure of the steel. (How does Dr. Wood explain it? She doesn't.)
Tying it back to the analogy, really hot beams or even steel that was ablated into tiny iron spheres can be created without a fire or fireball further from the ignition point of the FGNW by those directed highly energetic neutrons. Granted, materials with a lower ignition temperature than the high temperatures reached by the steel in its volume heating (or the iron spheres) could result in a fire, but only if other conditions are met, like sufficient time in contact with the heat source.
Exhibit B is your characterization of "cool dust", because it doesn't tell the full story or even match what Dr. Wood collects in her evidence. Owing to the neutrons of the FGNW also having passed through air not just in the towers but above the towers, the ambient temperature at the WTC rose. The first responders crossing the bridge noted how all of a sudden they crossed into a hotter area.
FGNW explain how residual water in materials (e.g., drywall, concrete) being bombarded with highly energetic neutrons would instantly turn to steam whose expanding volume pressure would break those same materials from the inside and everywhere and "dustify" it. This is what we observe streaming off of ejected wall assemblies. The ratio of surface area to mass of the created dust that was ejected would be cooled by the air through which it traveled.
By the time the dust had traveled from the height of the towers to the street level, it would have had insufficient temperature to ignite things landed upon. To characterize the dust as "cold" or "cool" is incorrect. True, the dust wasn't burning embers as can happen when chemical explosives are deployed.
Exhibit C is your question "where's the steel?" in a photo with just one tiny snippet of a much larger damage area that doesn't happen to show many wall assemblies. Boo-hoo. Look how far away from the tower shell the picture was. How much steel can't be seen because it is covered in dust and rubble?
//
x123 Roger Gloux : trying to figure out what you are saying
2018-12-28
Maxwell Bridges I wont comment on your silly name calling meant to demean me. Kinda like Fetzer does.
On your A. point I acknowledge electricity is used to heat water and we don't see fire. You also don't see fire when a crowd dispersal round antenna is directed at people either but they do feel very uncomfortable and move away very quickly.
We are not talking about a hot plate that takes electricity, we are discussing your perception of NW that have to receive heat in order to make it work..What is this heat source?
And what temperature are we talking about.
You stated before, every sixth to 12 floors there were NW's used to destroy each floor in 1/10th of a sec.. Does that mean each of these floors had a different source to cause detonation?
And so low you can't see the fire of these detonations?
I'm trying to figure out what you are saying because when you see big chunks of outside walls falling, they are turning to dust and don't reach the ground. Nothing was attached to them, but we all see them turn to dust.
The same with the heavy steel girders that protrude above the destruction and nothing is attached to them, but these just turn to dust. If your going to say the NW's did it, how exactly do they accomplish that?
You said..... " like sufficient time in contact with the heat source. "
Well the whole Tower turned to dust in 9-10 seconds or 1/10th of a second per floor. And this happened from the top down and hardly anything hit the ground except lots of dust. So this means something cooked the NW's sufficiently at precisely 1/10th of a second in sequence. What triggered the heat to cook the NW"s?
will go to B. next.
+++ g
x124 Maxwell C. Bridges : Neither "Mossad" nor "bot" has belittling effect
2018-12-28
Dear Mr. Gloux, you wrote that you "wont comment on your silly name calling meant to demean me. Kinda like Fetzer does."
There you go again, spinning disinformation and making dubious associations.
(a) "Mossad" and "bot" are proven character traits for you, not "silly names."
(b) Words like "idiot" and "fool" would be meant to demean you, and aren't used by me. Neither "Mossad" nor "bot" has belittling effect, given the skills and persistence that the connotation of each brings to the table.
(c)_ Dr. Fetzer does use belittling language meant to demean. But as is proven, my language wasn't, so I'm ~not~ "kinda like Fetzer."
(d) Kudos, because your bot-ish, database-limited, repetitive responses makes it understandable why a participant might be inspired to be "kinda like Fetzer" in how they deal with you.
You wrote: "You also don't see fire when a crowd dispersal round antenna is directed at people either but they do feel very uncomfortable and move away very quickly."
Regarding my POINT A.
I blame myself for your confused rebuttal, because I probably didn't make myself clear in the analogy chosen owing to too many assumptions in my audience's intelligence. So this gives me the opportunity to explain it again using different words.
I speculate that if wall assemblies (or other ejected steel building components) were grazed by the cone of emitted highly energetic neutrons from FGNW passing right through the steel's molecules, energy deposited to the volume of the material would cause it get very hot.
The ejected steel that was subjected to such FGNW targeting would potentially burn off what might be attached to them. Anything such as concrete dust coming to rest on these heated pieces in the aftermath would eventually smolder.
The "steel doobies" (or Dr. Wood's "rolled up carpets") already prove the spandrels connecting the three hollow box columns of the wall assemblies got so hot, they became pliable and allowed the assembly "to be rolled together" after separation from the tower and before (in one case) stabbing itself into the ground next to an adjacent building on Libery Street.
Your rebuttal contained a description of a DEW crowd disperal antenna and its ability to make people move as if on fire, but with no actual fire. Bravo. You should research both the wavelengths used in such feats, the relative amplitude of the output, and the energy consumption at the source. Why?
Because the wavelengths are not all equal in terms of ease of transmission through the atmosphere, through building structure, or transmission of energy for the destruction of a target. When the spectrum is explored for sweet-spots, those devices would still line of sight progressively bore through what they aim at.
Contrast the above DEW with FGNW that expell highly energetic neutrons as the DEW. The neutrons pass instantly through all material placed in front of them, rather than progressively boring through.
Consider the videos of the upper block of stories seemingly accordioning in on itself. Based on its acceleration, the structure of the upper block on all levels ~instantly~ lost minimum 65% of its original strength. FGNW's expelled highly energetic neutrons can do this. Woodsian DEW at other wavelengths cannot achieve such an instant on all floors effect.
Further analysis of Woodsian DEW, if a "super-duper set of harmonic destructive wavelengths" could theoretically exhibit certain anomalous features observed in the WTC destruction or aftermath, how does Hutchinson's research scale to the levels required for the observed destruction output? Is it instant or does it require time for harmonic resonance to build? More importantly, how much input energy would this require and what would its energy source be?
[Disinformation element in Dr. Wood's work] The math isn't performed to estimate the input energy required for the observed output. Supposition and destraction are made into cold fusion, barely out of its infancy today, followed by the minimum plausible amount of superficial nuclear research.
The analysis of the USGS dust samples proves that fission happened, while the song-and-dance tritium report was needed to cover for the tritium evidence, a feature of nearly all FGNW. When considering nuclear means as an input energy source, it is much easier to expell highly energetic neutrons (FGNW) in a DEW fashion than it is to generate a "super-duper set of harmonic destructive wavelengths" at sufficient amplitude (DEW).
Mr. Gloux, your DEW research seems to be limited to Dr. Wood's efforts. A trip to your local institution of higher education to get a library card and online access would serve you well, if you were a real person. My raw research into DEW would give any earnest seeker of Truth a leg up and headstart on their own edification into the matter.
Your Mossad agenda prevented you from objective review of its details. Why? Because further research proves that Woodsian DEW can't be easily powered and wouldn't necessarily produce the observed destruction.
I've speculated before that 6 to 12 FGNW per tower. A tiny fission trigger causes a fusion reaction, but 80% of the energy & total yield is highly energetic neutrons that pass instantly through all material in the path of its output cone. (Neutrons passing through material doesn't mean the material isn't affected.) Devices were subkiloton total yield before considering 20% is in a localized heat wave, shock wave, and EMP, and somewhat mitigated by ignition within the structure and aimed upwards.
Depending on how they were targeted, various building components were able to absorb energy and radiate it as heat for a time in the pile. However, I speculate that all FGNW reached their full yield, and were left nuclear fizzling in the pile (supported by Dr. Cahill's air testing that proved "continual regeneration of particles".)
Mr. Gloux, you wrote: "... when you see big chunks of outside walls falling, they are turning to dust and don't reach the ground. Nothing was attached to them, but we all see them turn to dust."
This is a wrong characterization of the destruction, or spin. The big chunks of outside walls were not turning to dust as they fell. No. The highly energetic neutrons that passed through the materials left behind energy in the entire volume of steel targeted, causing the metal to radiate heat sufficient "smolder/smoke/steam" off material affix to it, like paint, asbestos, drywall... and is seen as smoke & dust trailing the falling wall assemblies. The possiblity exists that the metal surfaces facing the oncoming cone of highly energetic neutrons experienced ablation, such as the leading surface edge turning to vapor, and would therefore also have this in the mix of smoke and dust getting cooked off of the metal.
//
x125 Roger Gloux : Do you speak at anytime, the Mossad in nice terms?
2018-12-28
Maxwell Bridges you make me laugh Big Max. You sound like a Politician using exquisite english to baffle the audience and in the end, a person says, "What did he say?".
You said.... " Words like "idiot" and "fool" would be meant to demean you,"
Is this a joke?
What do you think of anyone living in Israel that speaks Aramaic? Do you speak at anytime, the Mossad in nice terms?
When you call me a Mossad agent--- bot, is that a compliment or is it meant as something in the derogatory realm in your eyes? I've never been to Israel and don't want to go there because of all the wars surrounding the Country, and not forgetting the Palestinians who go around stabbing or running people down in their cars with intent to kill.
You are totally ignorant (lacking facts) as to who the Palestinians are and where they came from. The Hamas Leader say the Gazans are Egyptians. With all the money extracted from Countries around the world, why don't they build infra structure with that money rather then purchase rockets to send into Israel to kill anyone in that Country?
For some strange reason you are sour and attack verbally anything to do with Israel. You blame Israel for everything as if they can control what goes on in the World. Your a very strange man.
The fact you are so against Israel and then call me a Mossad is meant to demean me.
Let me ask you a simple question, why do you think people call "that Land" as Israel?
Not only that, you never tried to trace the "steps" as to where "Ancient Israel" went because of being displaced by a foreign ruler. They didn't disappear.
You have no idea what "Zion" means but in your eyes that is a derogatory word so call others as a "Zionist" to demean them.
On top of that, you don't know what "Jew" means and have no idea who they are. But your a self proclaimed expert and anyone that goes against what you "think" in your mind, is an agent for Mossad.
So getting back to the topic of what went on on 9/11, you figure "Jews" got into the whole complex of seven Buildings and destroyed them with FGNW or "nukes" for short, to further their aim to Control the World. And pulled an "oops" by leaving a delivery truck under Liberty street that exploded by who knows what means, FGNW. Youve never seen FGNW and have no idea as to what they can do and and never handled them but your absolutely convinced this is how the Whole Complex was destroyed.... and Silverstein was the culprit.
Obviously Silverstein is complicit with Cheney, Rumsfeld and "dubbya" and gang. Just like the Mafia has a leader and all their henchmen behind the scene.
As for the chunks of steel falling, there was nothing attached to them, but they did turn to dust.Your explanation doesn't make sense. It's a lot of fancy jargon coming from a guy who never saw, used, or demonstrated with this supposed scenario.
But a eccentric John Hutchison shows how a piece of iron turns and twists totally deformed without any heat whatsoever....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnBdhsXl088
Now you don't have any thing to show your concept in any form, with material that is so rare and hard to get, and only the lead scientists and Leaders of a country have access to. And supposedly hauled over bridges through downtown New York with a substance that would be highly radioactive and placed in seven buildings while occupied without anyone knowing. You don't make sense.
Delete or hide this
YOUTUBE.COM
The Hutchison Effect - Iron Bar Warping and Fuming from…
Sam Haschets
Sam Haschets Roger Gloux not to interrupt - but is it your claim that all the steel turned to dust
"As for the chunks of steel falling, there was nothing attached to them, but they did turn to dust"
x126 Maxwell C. Bridges : three prongs to the disinformation
2018-12-28
Sure, Mr. Sam Haschets, by all means interrupt. The thing about our Mossad-bot Mr. Gloux is that he was given Dr. Wood's work to defend, and that is all he has. His bot algorithms won't let him analyze and critique work that isn't Dr. Wood or isn't in his database of acceptable answers that have been aimed at 9/11 Truthers still hung up on the Nano-Thermite, so aren't even applicable to FGNW.
I've noticed three prongs to the disinformation about the extent of building content, and in particular steel, turning to dust.
(1) The video that from one perspective of the spire showed suddenly buffs of dust to obscure the movement of spire downwards out of frame. Woodsian adherents do not reference other view points of the same expiring spire that more clearly show the steel spire telescoping and falling quickly through the lighter lingering dust clouds.
Begs the question what created this sudden dust event? I speculate that the spire was used as a controlled mounting location for FGNW that were not within the destructive output cones of energy. Because of this, building construction material close to the spire was also spared. When the final cleanup FGNW from below completed the job, its energy beam affected first materials with water content (e.g., drywall, concrete) turning them into dust that lingered in the air, while base support steel failed cause the above to drop through the dust cloud.
(2) Lots of images show large wall assemblies falling while trailing smoke, dust, steam. The FGNW premise suggest that wall assemblies grazed by the cone of highly energetic neutrons would absorb energy and become sufficiently hot to be able to cook off anything attached to them (e.g., paint, asbestos, drywall, concrete). Some form of ablation of the actual steel could have happened that also would have been part of the dark gray matter seen billowing off the falling wall chunks.
(3) Woodsian followers are prone to saying "steel was dustified" without quantifying the amount and while skewing select images that from the angle (or the amount of rubble and dust that covered the ground and heavier pieces of metal) suggest that there wasn't enough steel. Wall assemblies are seen falling and were well represented in the debris piles, which tends to mess with the Woodsian brain-dead arguments of "steel dustification."
If the Woodsian followers were sincere, they'd admit that DEW means "targeting of the energy" such that it missed the spire or only grazed the wall assemblies, but completely ablated the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors and dustified the concrete, because these were within the targeted output cone.
//
x127 Maxwell C. Bridges : three prongs to the disinformation
2018-12-28
Part 1/2 Dear Mr. Gloux, you wrote poorly: "What do you think of anyone living in Israel that speaks Aramaic? Do you speak at anytime, the Mossad in nice terms?"
Two questions that only a Mossad agent would think to bring up, as if it had any relevance. Aramaic speaking Israelis I give about as much thought to as a speaker of one dialect of the 230 languages spoken in Cameroon.
I speak nicely of Mossad in the same frequency that I speak fondly of the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, and the Pentagon, and my praise of them individually or combined has a huge wavelength. Only a Mossad agent would try to spin the discussion into thinking of Mossad in nice terms, instead of realistic terms of how they destabalize their region and the planet.
You asked: "When you call me a Mossad agent--- bot, is that a compliment or is it meant as something in the derogatory realm in your eyes?"
From my years of interactions with you, "Mossad-bot" becomes a valid character assessment of you. Like the disinformation warrior that you are, you try to parry into "snowflake territory" by assuming it has a negative bias, when it simply is what it is: an assessment of your activities. You'd rather talk about feelings than address the specifics in your comments that would give a reader that impression.
Tirelessly like a bot, you steadfastly adhere to Woodsian premises, cycle through lame arguments (some not even relevant to FGNW DEW), and refuse to acknowledge Woodsian deficiencies (e.g., lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, poor nuclear research). Were you sincere and not enamoured with carrying out Mossad disinformation campaigns, exposed Woodsian deficits would have had you objectively considering variations that build on DEW, like FGNW. In trying to wrap my head around why you aren't an FGNW ally & promoter by now, "Mossad-bot" is what comes to mind.
You wrote: "I've never been to Israel and don't want to go there because of all the wars surrounding the Country, and not forgetting the Palestinians who go around stabbing or running people down in their cars with intent to kill."
I'll accept at face value your claim of never visiting Israel. The question becomes: Why do you defend Israel so? Your reasoning is that Israel is a victim surrounded by other violent nations, and those bad, bad Palestinian. Yet, the badness that Israel inflicts on the Palestianians and the invasion into its territories? Oh, your pro-Mossad blinders won't let you see that or that such slows the frequency even more of nice things said about Mossad from unbiased outsiders.
If it's true -- and I have no reason to doubt -- that you've never been to Israel, you should feel sad. When the Israeli lobby purchases US Congress, they at least sponsor "fact finding" trips to the region (and its beaches and night life). Plenty of money greases the support of Christian Zionists, although they like you may not have gotten an all expense paid trip out of it. Bummer for you. You don't rank.
I will not address your other Mossad-inspired and irrelevant comments. The discussion was about FGNW, not the Palestines. The fact that "Mossad" seems to be a trigger word for your algorithms to re-post lame propaganda from your databases is and has been a sign.
... And man, did your Mossad-bot trigger ever get pulled! I was responding paragraph by paragraph until I got to the database dump and started deleting for them being unworthy of comment.
Until I get to the paragraph where you attempt to think for me: (Mr. Bridges figures)"'Jews' got into the whole complex of seven Buildings and destroyed them with FGNW or 'nukes' for short, to further their aim to Control the World."
*Beebp* *Beebp* Nope! Wrong answer. Wrong tactic, and so lamely repetitive Mr. Gloux-bot.
I never wrote or referenced "Jews", but this is the second or third time you've tried to misquote me in this manner. Why? Because you're trying to set up an anti-semitic charge against me. Again, your bot algorithms are misfiring and posting database entries into the response that aren't relevant.
Regarding 9/11 and your point, American-Israelis and Christian Zionists were involved with the operation, and Israel was a huge beneficiary of the changes shoved into American policies. Under the cover of American war crimes in the region to Israeli enemies (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan), Israel conducted its war crimes against Palastinians.
The "oops" pulled by leaving a delivery truck under Liberty Street with a FGNW? That was bat-shit crazy speculation requested by you from me as one possible explanation. As such, you have no basis for mocking it, particularly if you don't have an explanation or potential mechanisms that explain this feature.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2 You wrote with my edits: "Youve never seen [blank] and have no idea as to what they can do and and never handled them but your absolutely convinced this is how the Whole Complex was destroyed.... and Silverstein was [a] culprit."
I replaced "[blank]" for "FGNW in the above. Why? Because this piece of nonsense in more true when "[blank]" refers to Dr. Wood's non-conclusions that our Mossad-bot defends as an end-station. I replaced "the culprit" with "a culprit," because this is clearly meant as a diversion from considering the involvement of other American-Israelis and Christian Zionists.
You wrote the following hypnotic suggestion that is plain wrong: "As for the chunks of steel falling, there was nothing attached to them, but they did turn to dust."
The chunks of steel falling most assuredly did originally have things attached to them. Aluminum cladding on the outside. On the inside, there would be insulation if not asbestos insulation followed by drywall or other materials that would finish the inside and could be painted to match office decor.
Furthermore, a three-story wall assembly had four connections with the steel trusses that held the steel pans that supported the concrete floors. Some of the larger wall assemblies were dragging chunks of floor with them. As was already mentioned, the concrete was already decimated into particles and would have been trail streaming behind.
The amount of steel wall assemblies (and steel pieces) scattered throughout the WTC and depicted in images all over Dr. Judy Wood's book trashes the assertion that "(steel) did turn to dust." Needs to be quantified as I have done (e.g., trusses, pans), otherwise a valid argument is being promoted dubiously so that it will fail.
So many classic disinformation techniques were deployed by you, only to be exposed and destroyed by me... Ho-hum.
You wrote: "Your explanation doesn't make sense. It's a lot of fancy jargon coming from a guy who never saw, used, or demonstrated with this supposed scenario."
I wager that the Mossad-bot re-purposed the above, and it was originally aimed at his Woodsian premises that have no conclusions, nor any hint of actual mechanisms that deliver such power and can be real-world powered.
How many seconds were required for an "eccentric John Hutchison (to show) how a piece of iron turns and twists totally deformed without any heat whatsoever...."? How much power did it require? Does it scale? And are the deformations produced the same as at the WTC?
Questions posed for the Mossad-bot already, but not addressed.
You wrote finally: "Now you don't have any thing to show your concept in any form, with material that is so rare and hard to get, and only the lead scientists and Leaders of a country have access to. And supposedly hauled over bridges through downtown New York with a substance that would be highly radioactive and placed in seven buildings while occupied without anyone knowing. You don't make sense."
What a wonderful bot-glitch that was! I throw your last sentence -- "You don't make sense. -- back at you. The paragraph represents a two-for-one in negative points against you. One, it exposes that you still haven't read any of my blog postings. Two, it exposes that you still haven't done any of your own nuclear research.
Such deficiencies in your education come to light in the hype and fear and lies you spread with your "substance that would be highly radioactive."
When considering the requirements for the sub-kiloton yields of FGNW, the expulsion of targeted highly energetic neutrons is achieved through fusion that use small amounts of tritium as its source. However in order to reach temperatures for fusion to happen, tiny amounts of Uranium were used in a fission trigger.
My premise? Limited number of devices, and tiny amounts of radioactive material, which in any event can be adequately shielded in lead containment and transported here, there, and everywhere, hauled across bridges, through towns, and even up elevators without others being the wiser (or radiated senseless). Wouldn't surprise me if the radioactive material in the fission trigger wasn't delivered separately after the base FGNW were mounted in the several days bomb-sniffing dogs took vacation prior to the event. Many Hollywood movies that use military advisors for accuracy have already hinted at how real world FGNW would be assembled and enabled.
// Part 2/2
x128 Maxwell C. Bridges : cock-a-maymie crazy ideas
2019-02-05
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, you make many valid points in this originally authored comment (as opposed to copy & paste). I loved your phrasing of "cock-a-maymie crazy ideas", but is one of the areas where you're wrong.
I don't generally call people names. When a name or description has become a validated characteristic assessment, that is a different story. I haven't validated that you are Mossad, so I really shouldn't be calling you that just because the trend line from the data points you've sprinkled screams it.
What data points? Your inability to objectively admit the limitations of Dr. Wood's work that necessitate further research and other 9/11 premises. Yes, she's close, but deliberately stopped short and even inserted branching rabbit-holes. This is before shitty research is exposed.
Another data point near and dear to my heart is that when a premise is presented that expands and enhances Dr. Wood's work to the next level, the manner of your avoidance to address specifics coupled with the number of times you copied & pasted inapplicable responses and then the constant circling back to incomplete Woodsian premises... these spell out insincerity and an agenda.
The data point near and dear to your heart is your depth of knowledge of all historical things Jew, Israel, and Zionism with hardly any effort, and scholarly goes above and beyond, and certainly in agreement with what any other internet Zionist-troll might spew out into the ether in defense of Israel.
Ever hear of triagnularization? Made popular by President Clinton, but really has a long history in a manner similar to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I haven't known Ms. Jennie Johnstone very long and find her postings a very mixed bag in terms of my agreement.
Just like you, Mr. Roger Gloux, often come across like an Israeli agent, Ms. Jennie Johnstone often comes across like a Trump-GOP disinfo agent. You two should compare notes, insights into game-plans, "better the devil that you know than the one you don't."
//
Chapter 5: FGNW Discussions with Heinz Pommer
Mr. Heinz Pommer has done admirable work to finding root causes of 9/11 WTC destruction. Discovering examples of camera scintillation is a major find for 9/11 Truth, because it is recorded real-time evidence of radiation at the WTC.
However, Mr. Pommer and I deviate in our premises, because he proposes singular and underground nuclear devices per tower (like many others who champion 9/11 nuclear.) After a below ground nuclear ignition, somehow energy goes up the elevator shaft to start destruction at high floors and progressing downwards, without that energy decimating lower floors at the same time or before the higher floors.
x130 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW Discussion
2017-12-31
date: Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:33 PM
subject: FGNW Discussion
Sehr geehter Herrn Pommer,
Als ich heute an Facebook Ihre Videos über 9/11 erfuhr, habe ich mich total gefreut! Ich bin nicht der einzige (conspiracy theorist), der Nuklearewaffen spekulierte!!! Ich bin dabei Ihre Webseite durchzulesen. Ich bin so froh, müsste ich gleich Kontakt mit Ihnen aufklopfen.
Leider ist Deutsch nicht meine Muttersprache. Ich entschüldige mich für die Sprachfehler. Zu wenig Übung. Da ich weiss, Sie Englisch verstehen, wechsele ich den Text. Letzten Jahrhundert war ich fünf Jahr Geschäftlich tätig in Deutschland und Österreich: Redateur für technische Englisch, "technical writer" (und daher finde ich Ihre www.bitplant.de auch sehr interessant.)
Wie dem auch sei, meine Arbeitskollege und ich habe meistens unsere Muttersprache benutzt (Englisch/Deutsch) worin wir uns am besten ausdrücken konnten. Können wir auch hier tun.
Three of my super-powers: (1) persistence, (2) naive & trusting [until given reason not to be], and (3) written discussions.
I've been around the 9/11 block many times and have been duped by more than my share of disinformation owing to super power #2. However, my persistence super-power #1 had me vet information and that information sources; helped me identify disinformation. With regards to 9/11, practically everything has misinformation if not blatant disinformation. The key, I learned, was to identify & rescue the nuggets that are the required foundation of every successful disinformation vehicle. My super power #3 comes from my engineering studies and subsequent career in technical writing. I am a very formidable discussion opponent in online forums.
In fact, such online discussions make up the majority of the content for my blog. I write for posterity, not for the heat of the moment in "battle." I take the high road, and am not deterred by attempts at flame wars. I learned early on never to trust the databases of others to preserve my worthy efforts. Aside from curbing baser instincts in composition, having my own (vanity) blog and website that I maintain OCD style ends up being possibly even a super power #4. I save links and enough quotes from discussions in my re-publishing efforts. Gives me the ability to quickly shut down troll attempts to re-spin carousels; I simply locate the appropriate in my blog "goto" URLs where original discussions transpired.
I wish to call your attention to this article that I wrote:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
I don't claim it is the end-station on 9/11. And just in watching your video, I might have to modify my views and/or technical details based on your analysis. [Let that be proof that I am a real person, and not a bot or troll. I'm willing to change my opinion based on new information.]
I have been using the holiday period to consolidate & publish my meager FGNW discussions from the year. I've achieved consolidation, but not publication, because I've been distracted by editing, shortening, and updating the above article into a new work: 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case. And now I'm distracted again by writing you -- on the last day of the year.
I won't bore you with more details, because if the above link wasn't enough of a rabbit hole, then the readily available archive links into my re-purposed online discussions are.
Sorry in advance. Not something I recommend reading A-Z; very repetitive; shows how I got to be burned out on 9/11 and jaded.
What I'm not sorry about is how it demonstrates legacy and evolution in thought. Neither are things you will find with disinfo agents and trolls, in part because they are paid to defend an agenda, in part because they don't stand by their words, and in part because they don't write words worthy of preserving. (Too much legacy in an agent is bad, because eventually patterns emerge in their agenda-defending that makes them less than genuine.)
Aside from desiring feedback on the FGNW premise above, I did have feedback for you on the Part 2 video.
You depict your weapon in the basement of the towers, directing its energy upwards. I'm not saying that there wasn't such an FGNW in the basements and maybe caused that geological formation. What I'm saying is that there had to be more than one FGNW placed at various levels in the structure in order to match the video evidence that shows destruction originating in the upper levels.
Fracticide is a big problem with nuclear devices, particularly those emitting neutrons. They can foul neighboring FGNW causing them to fizzle or otherwise not meet their full expected output. [The under rubble hot-spots are an indication of such happening.] But if they are aimed upwards and detonated high in the structure first before lower, their neutron emissions won't knock out FGNW lower in the structure.
Occupational hazard, I've gone on too long already with this email. Apologies.
I do hope that you will review my article and engage me in FGNW discussion.
P.S. My wife is from Argentina and encouraged me many years ago to use an alias. Those with even middling IT skills can discover the "Bruce Wayne" to my "Batman". I never fixed the flaw that allows its discovery, because ultimately I do stand behind my words. It is one thing to discover "Peter Parker" is "Spider-Man", and quite another to expose it to the world.
// mcb
x131 Heinz Pommer : model-test-adaption
2018-01-01
date: Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 9:38 AM
subject: Re: FGNW Discussion
Happy New Year Mr. Maxwell,
I see we share the same methodology: as the 9/11-lies are dynamic, flexible and adaptive we must not stay focused on a rigid model.
This is the good scientific approach: model-test-adaption -- model-test-adaption.
---
I consider the physical problems as solved. Please find the up-to-date [corrected] model attached.
This model includes the real data interference/EMP signal from Chopper 2 during the North Tower's destruction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=1h20m22s
MY INTERPRETATION:
6 seconds: nuclear process/pressure chamber builds up (= camera blackout)
3 seconds: cavity remains sealed under high pressure (= camera stable, no interference noise)
2 seconds: plasma breakthrough at ground level (= camera unstable, first interference wave)
2 seconds: plasma breakthrough on top (= camera unstable, second interference wave)
*************
The second-generation nuke cavity as postulated by Khalzov does not exist. He has been fiercely attacked for this error.
I fell into the same trap last year, still assuming an impulse response with a nuclear plasma upshot.
A third generation nuclear weapon would account for many additional observed phenomena: *a reflected radiation flash upwards and a delayed eruption*
This includes the registered interference/EMP signal from Chopper 2.
It also solves the riddle why the ground trembled 10 seconds prior to the North Tower's eruption.
I had a real headache, trying to figure it out (it is too long for an impulse response).
*************
When it comes to FGNW I would like to recommend caution.
By postulating their existence you only offer the payed dis-information agents a new point of attack.
Even when citing Andre Gsponer's work you will be ridiculed: we have no real data about their possiblities in action.
Furthermore, why should the perpertrators care about the duped civilian population and a bit of low-level radioactivity?
Thousands of people already died of 9/11 cancer, many thousand more are currently dying, tens of thousands need medical care.
With these numbers and the USGS dust sample data (uranium/thorium) I am inclined to believe in a dirty process, not in FGNW technology.
*************
We cannot be sure about the weapon's true design, some minor riddles remain: *the energy pulses in and around the Towers, up to one hour before destruction*
In my video I showed a possible layout of a neutron pulsator, without being too sure. But using/assuming simple, dirty technology.
It does not matter. The head of the snake is the financial system, with privately owned rights to print money. They use their financial power to subjugate the people of the United States and Europe, heavily controlling Russia and China as well. The use of nuclear weapons on 9/11 was a show of force, in my opinion. The paid politicians are following their orders, and we 'The People' live in carefully guarded ignorance by the Powers That Should Not Be.
I recommend humor to face the situation, not all looks black!
Best regards
Heinz Pommer
x132 Maxwell C. Bridges : potential issues with Dr. Andre Gsponer
2018-01-01
date: Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 12:36 PM
subject: Re: FGNW Discussion
Sehr geehrte Herrn Pommer,
Alles gutes im neuen Jahr, wünsche ich Ihnen und Ihre Familie! Und vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung!
You are correct to point out potential issues with Dr. Andre Gsponer: mostly that his work is speculative and he doesn't & hasn't designed any nuclear devices. On the other hand, everything in the public domain is speculative and forward looking, otherwise it doesn't get out. By its nature, it has room for disinformation to keep "enemies" in doubt. It can make it appear that certain devices don't exist yet when maybe they do; it can speculate about things that might never come to existence, etc. One constant, however, is that he has enough contacts in the nuclear industry to be able to constantly improve his work, and (to my knowledge) nobody has taken issue with it. In case you missed the link, here's the important one:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
I'm sure you'll be able to gather important insight from the above document (PDF available). I certainly did.
Yes, the evidence you present of video static prior to the demolitions is new information for me that has me scratching my head. In many ways, it matches Dr. Wood's speculation about the process starting early and made victims (in WTC-1) jump to their deaths.
You wrote:
When it comes to FGNW I would like to recommend caution.
By postulating their existence you only offer the payed dis-information agents a new point of attack.
Even when citing Andre Gsponer's work you will be ridiculed: we have no real data about their possiblities in action.
While it should be true that postulating the existence of FGNW, I offer the paid disinfo agents an attack point. In practice, it does not. Nuclear 9/11 is the topic they are not allowed to talk about, period. They'll mock it, attack me, but they will never go into specifics, quote from one of my sources, and have a reasoned explanation for why it is wrong. Their attack point is limited to Dr. Gsponer only being able to write "speculative forward-looking" FGNW, not about what is current day state-of-the-art & operational.
In fact, this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. I now know where Dr. Wood errored and is disinformation, but I also know & knew that she was closest to the truth. (If you are ever bored, you should read some of my exchanges with Mr. Rogue or Mr. Ruff on Truth & Shadows.) Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational -- taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.
I am in exile from my favorite 9/11 discussion group -- Truth and Shadows. It wasn't out of punishment for anything I did. It was because of the anticipated bad behavior of discussion opponents to (infrequent) comments from me that might on occasion relate my FGNW hobby-horse to the topic. I was punished for my bad behaving opponent's "pre-crime". I'm naive enough to think I still have good relations with Mr. McKee. He thinks it is enough to prove controlled demolitions, and discussions into demolition details have become disruptive. He'd rather focus on bringing greater public awareness to 9/11 Truth. A bit short-sighted, because the disruptive comments against nuclear 9/11 are proof of a disinformation effort, and nothing says "Wake up, America!" better than "The USA nuked itself on 9/11 and told you it was gravity." In other words, if he gave FGNW a corner for it to be discussed rationally, moderated it fairly, he'd have the hot-button issue to achieve is greater aims of public awareness, but he could also channel off-topic nuclear side-bar comments on other threads.
You wrote:
Furthermore, why should the perpertrators care about the duped civilian population and a bit of low-level radioactivity?
Thousands of people already died of 9/11 cancer, many thousand more are currently dying, tens of thousands need medical care.
The perpetrators are also the ones hyping nuclear fear for decades: "large yields, lots of radiation." Any whiff from the public of any radioactivity would result in mass public panic in the New York area, regardless of low-level or not. Further, such validated whiffs reduce the number of possible perpetrators, and would lead to the figurative additional nuclear fall out in the halls of government, agencies, etc. An angry public could change government, and the status quo profiting from the ruse. Meanwhile, though, they get lots of credit around the leadership of the world for having low-level radiation nuclear devices and a crazy zeal to deploy them on themselves and by extension others, and sufficient media control to convince the masses it was gravity. Power.
You wrote:
With these numbers and the USGS dust sample data (uranium/thorium) I am inclined to believe in a dirty process, not in FGNW technology.
Pure fusion doesn't exist. All FGNW as far as I can tell is fission-triggered.
We cannot be sure about the weapon's true design, some minor riddles remain: *the energy pulses in and around the Towers, up to one hour before destruction*
In my video I showed a possible layout of a neutron pulsator, without being too sure. But using/assuming simple, dirty technology.
I'm still scratching my head about your riddles.
It does not matter. The head of the snake is the financial system, with privately owned rights to print money. They use their financial power to subjugate the people of the United States and Europe, heavily controlling Russia and China as well. The use of nuclear weapons on 9/11 was a show of force, in my opinion. The paid politicians are following their orders, and we 'The People' live in carefully guarded ignorance by the Powers That Should Not Be.
Agreed.
Short version. 9/11 goes back 10 years before to President G.H.W.Bush who took borrowed against the gold of various black operations (Black Eagle Fund, Marcos Fund: gold stolen by Nazi's and Japanese, found by Americans, never given back to heirs, and used to fund black ops). What he borrowed, he used to manipulate the Russian markets and put the evil empire against the ropes. That note came due on 9/11/2001. Not only was this forgiven, but SEC records on many ongoing cases were destroyed. When the markets opened, many billions were laundered in the opening days. WTC-4 had gold vaults that were looted in part. And let's not forget the missing $2.3 trillion in defense spending the Pentagon couldn't account for on 9/10. The Office of Naval Investigations -- its agents and records -- were the only ones who moved into the newly renovated Pentagon wing and were the only fatalities. And war profiteering and HSA/TSA followed. A huge money heist and transfer of wealth that even played into the 2007 collapse. (When the markets opened and laundered money and various funds no longer committed, banks found themselves with more money. What do banks do when they have more money? They lend even more, and lent to those who really couldn't afford it, didn't understand changing terms, and got caught holding the bag. Lots of real brick-and-mortar wealth changed hands since 9/11.)
+++++
I have two areas of disagreement that maybe you can convince me otherwise: deployment and number of devices. You show only one device in the base of the tower's structure. Lines of highly energetic neutrons start at the single device and go upwards through the core. Whereas a single detonation might match the video evidence you present, I don't think it matches either the observed event or the expected outcome.
I don't see how a single device in the basement could handle the "20-30 story block" anomalies that were pulverized first and before the collapsed passed below the impact level. Here's a quote from me, because it is relevant (and I am lazy).
When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories [Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler], he calculated that the roof fell at a constant 65% gravitational acceleraton. This means that the 20 story structure SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY went to 35% of its minimum strength needed to support itself. The pulverization is visible in the earliest moments of annihilation.
"What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes."~David Chandler at 2:30 in video.
The expected outcome from your proposed single device in the basement is that the highly energetic neutrons penetrate materials at all levels instantly, ablating thin metal in its path and volume heating bigger pieces to foundry levels for instant weakening. The observed effect (described on the top 20 stories) would not have initiated there, but at all levels; the entire structure would have been failing and turning to dust before our eyes.
I counter and propose that the 20 stories above is one piece of evidence pointing towards multiple devices. There is much evidence of explosions happening before the planes impacted at lower levels. WTC-4 did have a gold heist (vault door decimated, some gold found but loaded in a semi-truck and abandoned in the under ground parking structure.)
The theoretical inventor of the neutron bomb was asked if it could be aimed. He said you could probably get a hemisphere (with the technology of that era). Consider that a worst-case scenario to get tandem nuclear devices to work together and not cause fractricide. The best case is a relatively narrow beam.
The same devices were probably used on WTC-5 and WTC-6, but placed in various corners. Vaporized the roof, because not quite the number of floors to mask the energy, as in the towers. The spire is another clue to multiple devices; device mounting points.
9/11 was multiple events on purpose, so that the details could be conflated and confuse. It is easy to fall into the trap of saying, "if X was used at A, then X was also used at B." I'm guilty of that in the above paragraph.
+++ begin bat-shit crazy speculation
9/11 WTC towers doesn't have to be either-or with regards to your single device or my multiple devices. It could have been both.
It is hard to bring fusion-based devices to ignition, often requiring a fission trigger as you depicted. Under my premise, I've got at least 6 fission reactions per tower, and such reactions are temperamental and can fizzle around highly energetic neutrons from another source.
Is there a way for the output from your device -- once fission triggered on from the basements -- to bring other fusion devices higher in the tower to ignition?
It might only require one upper level device to decimate the upper block of stories and start the momentum of mass downward into the path -- not of greatest resistance but -- of weakened resistance.
Not my beliefs; just a thought.
+++ end bat-shit crazy speculation
Attached is an HTML file with a shorter version of my premise (still DRAFT). Save it locally, then double-click or drag into your browser. It has Javascript to open the sections.
I would appreciate any comments, feedback, and criticism that you might have. If it is okay with you, I would like permission to re-use (with attribution to you) some of your content in my next revision. I'd appreciate any recommendations on passages from your work.
Alles gutes.
// mcb
x133 Heinz Pommer : keep things simple
2018-01-02
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:41 AM
subject: Re: FGNW Discussion
Good morning Mr. Maxwell,
writing technical documentation I have learned to keep things simple.
When explaining difficult machinery the description's power lies in its simplicity.
---
So I avoided publishing some of my drawings/ geometric studies with multiple nuclear devices (you can use any of my drawings if you like).
I tried to explain the following facts:
- outflow of molten metal (WTC2)
- yellow "dust" seen at the beginning of the collapse (WTC2)
- disappearing / dissolving top (WTC2/WTC1)
- survivors in the lower staircase of WTC1 (the entire team of Mickey Kross)
- free passing was possible inside the staircase of WTC1 (Pasquale Buzzelli)
- free passing was possible inside the staircase of WTC1 and strange sounds on floor 34 (William Rodriguez)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EEvJ-3SLAA&t=29m55s
---
One year ago I was confident that the upshooting plasma could destroy the top, just melting it away, from inside out.
Well done, in a direct shot: 1 or 2 seconds after the blast with a focused plasma beam.
The new situation: we have 10 or even 15 seconds delay between the blast signal (tremor) and the observed eruption.
In these 15 seconds the plasma does loose far too much energy.
On the other hand, the Towers' top WERE SLOWLY weakend beforehand - the outflowing liquid metal of WTC2 shows that clearly.
---
Dr. Judy Woods said in an interview: "we don't know what it was, we can only guess". This is a pretty good statement.
We risk to ridicule ourselves if we add too many devices: one nuke in the basement, thermate for the connectors, explosives in the elevator shafts, one or several neutron pulsators beforehand...
---
So I will stick to my "single shot" neutron flash / eruption theory, with additional explosives in the elevator shafts and some additional unknown devilry. This is as far as I can go while being honest with myself.
But I think the most important message to the public should be: "expose the lies, reject the wars, do not fear the powerful".
The combination of Truth, Justice and Peace is the most dangerous enemy of the perpetrators.
They are not in an enviable position, although they have all the power and the money in this world.
Regards
Heinz Pommer
x134 Maxwell C. Bridges : simplification has to be correct
2018-01-03
Dear Mr. Pommer,
You wrote: "writing technical documentation I have learned to keep things simple. When explaining difficult machinery the description's power lies in its simplicity."
True. But the simplification has to be correct and has to remain valid both extracted from and inserted back into a larger owning system.
The last couple days is the first I learned about the static in the videos. I admit it still puzzles me and causes issue with my premise of multiple FGNW.
I'll come out quickly in agreement with these statements:
But I think the most important message to the public should be: "expose the lies, reject the wars, do not fear the powerful".
The combination of Truth, Justice and Peace is the most dangerous enemy of the perpetrators.
They are not in an enviable position, although they have all the power and the money in this world.
Dr. Judy Woods said in an interview: "we don't know what it was, we can only guess". This is a pretty good statement.
I wish more Woodsian followers would see that quote when they try to park 9/ll thought. Her work is not an end-station.
You wrote:
We risk to ridicule ourselves if we add too many devices: one nuke in the basement, thermate for the connectors, explosives in the elevator shafts, one or several neutron pulsators beforehand...
What is the purpose of one or several neutron pulsators in your scenario before over after the nuke in the basement? What sets them apart?
The ridicule risk is a given and the first line of attack of a disinfo agent, regardless of the proposition. So this shouldn't be a gating factor. Whatever number of devices we propose can be tweaked with more analysis.
I am unclear if you are proposing what comes after the colon, or if you are ridiculing it for being too many devices (from my bat-shit crazy speculation). I assume the latter. Being fair, their back-up plans probably had back-up plans. You've posted videos and images documenting multiple explosions, some happening below street level. So I don't know why you hold to only one device.
Section 2-5 of my Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW posting destroy nano-thermite (mixed with any combination of other explosive compounds, like RDX). The only samples having "energetic alumimum-iron flakes" were those samples given to Dr. Jones. He did not attempt to measure for any other type of chemical explosive when he first got them, or a few years later when this deficiency was brought to his attention. The logic was: if Dr. Jones failed to find such (owing to possible degredation over time), they feared OCT would have a hay-day with "no explosives found" marketing to underscore gravity alone. [I think they knew such wasn't there.]
The aluminum-iron flakes in the dust came from the corrosion of the aluminum cladding with the steel wall assemblies. No other outfit measuring elements in the dust found anything "energetic". Were such present in the dust to the degree implied by Dr. Jones et al, (1) what was found in the dust was unspent and represents massive overkill quantities, (2) the dust everwhere would have been an explosive hazard.
+++
You wrote:
So I will stick to my "single shot" neutron flash / eruption theory, with additional explosives in the elevator shafts and some additional unknown devilry. This is as far as I can go while being honest with myself.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume such a "single shot" or "upshooting plasma." The entire structure was weakened all at once. The mass resting above the impact zone was less than the mass supported low in the structure.
So what was special about the top floors that they would disintegrate first? Why wouldn't the larger potential energy imposed on lower levels -- given that the "single shot" weakened everything -- cause them to fail first? Instead of top-down, we'd have seen classic controlled demolition (like at WTC-7) that took out lower sections and let gravity crush everything down.
I apologize for my stubborness and disagreement in this area. As Dr. Wood writes:
"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tell the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is tell you."
Having read her book, I take this to mean: "I (Dr. Wood) was forced to include some bullshit, so don't get distracted by what I write, look at the evidence that I collected instead. Listen to it..." The audio signature is a clue.
If we assume only one device, the evidence suggests it couldn't be at the base. If anything, it was up near the impact point. Think of a Star Wars double-headed light saber.
[Bat-shit crazy speculation]
Instead of a device pointing only one direction, what if it were pointed two directions: up and down. Maybe a little delay between upward targeting and downward. Maybe an ignition that lasted several seconds, so after decimating the top levels, it starting aiming downwards ~and~ falling downwards. The falling device getting mis-aligned and targeting outside the wall assemblies could explain vehicle damage and whatnot.
[/Bat-shit crazy speculation]
The point is: I don't think upshooting plasma from a singular basement device could destroy the top and melt it away WITHOUT also doing the same to other levels at the same time and more closely resembling a bottom-up demolition.
I think more rational speculation needs to be made into the number of devices and their placement.
This being said, the destruction of the spire in the last seconds indicates at least one clean-up device.
With kind regards,
// mcb
x135 Heinz Pommer : Camera Fails
2018-01-03
date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:43 AM
subject: Camera Fails
Good morning Mr. Maxwell,
as a matter of fact we had surprisingly few camera fails.
Chopper 4 registered only 2 times a sort of strong energy field (neutrons I suspect)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRK9_Aauhdg&t=5m10s
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRK9_Aauhdg&t=6m15s
Chopper 2 registered the energy field with low intensity several times per minutes, here is a strong one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=18m10s
The full protocol is attached as PDF, but often its only one particle in one frame, its very time consuming.
I used shotcut Version 17.03.02 (free video editing tool)
Sometimes I thought to see a pattern, sometimes the intereferences are just randomly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=1h9m31s
Nonetheless, EMP and interference during the NorthTower's destruction are recorded excellently.
This is thanks to the fact that the Mico was closed all the time and the chopper 2 pilot did not comment the events.
In case of chopper 2 you hear the rotor blades all the time, in chopper 1 the micro is also open.
---
As for the scintillations on the ground (FOX NEWS & others): there is just this particular position, where the camera team was fully engulfed into the black cloud, running away, filming.
Someone said to me: "it is just the thermate-iron-micro-droplets which cause the malfunction after penetration in the camera system".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGaiSrxhRhU&t=50
So I was hunting for these camera fails outside the dustcloud, with modest success.
---
Regards
Heinz Pommer
date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:15 AM
subject: Backup
Good morning, once again,
currently I am pondering about WTC 7.
You are certainly right about the Backup Plan.
Also, a professor from Sweden brought my attention to the danger of firing a nuclear weapon near a nuclear weapon.
Neutron and radiation flux has to die down half an hour or so, until you can control/trigger the next shot.
---
On 9/11 three significant seismic shocks were registered (see attached file):
09:59: WTC-2; ML = 2.1
10:28: WTC-1; ML = 2.3
11:15: WTC-X ? ; ML = 1.3 (as I calculated it)
Then the still-false reports about WTC7's collapse did come in, hours too soon.
The seismic shock at 5:20 pm with ML = 0.6 was insignificant (and with even less energy than the impact/subbasement explosions with ML = 0.7)
This is speculation. But I suspect that WTC7 was behind schedule. Not CNN and BBC got the script wrong. Just the pulse at 11:15 was too weak.
As Silverstein put it: "we decided to pull" (e.g. the backup option).
I will try to summarize my thoughts in a video clip. The marge of error in the theories is still significant.
All the best
Heinz Pommer
x136 Maxwell C. Bridges : digesting
2018-01-04
date: Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:51 PM
subject: Re: Camera Fails
Dear Mr. Pommer,
You wrote "finding surprisingly few camera fails." Do you mean instances where the camera stopped working temporarily? permanently? This doesn't surprise me, because they weren't in the path of the directed energy and wouldn't necessarily be line of sight for EMP either.
You seem to be on target with the interference registered by the helicopter cameras seconds prior to major events.
Too bad you only found one example of scintillation on the ground when the camera was over-run by the dust cloud. But when put together with research of others showing camera side-effects when in the presense of radiation, it is still convincing.
You have much new information that I must assimilate, and will modify my FGNW premise; nuggets of truth always need to acknowledged.
However, you don't have me convinced of Dimitri's K.'s "deep under-ground nuke" that you've performed value-add and put a schematic around. Why?
The images of a "glassy rock" crater -- that OCT says were ancient natural geological features -- are from under WTC-4. The invalid assumptions are that a nuclear device was detonated here and/or that WTC-1 and WTC-2 had similar formations. The thermal images however show only a couple small hot-spots under WTC-4. You can see where 2/3 of WTC-4 was decimated, but (from other images) insufficient debris from WTC-2 to justify its disappearance.
Also, stories were that WTC-4 had a gold vault underneath. Reports are slim, but supposedly vault door was zapped. Gold was found, but loaded in the back of a semi-truck trailer abandoned by driver in the underground parking structure. They didn't report how much gold was expected to have been in the vaults, how much was recovered in the vault and the truck, etc. so we don't know the extent of the heist.
I think the OCT is right in this case about the natural geological features under WTC-4.
Returning to the nuclear chimney (and assuming true your premise), what was special about the 20-30 floors above the impact point that made them react and decimate first from the highly energetic neutrons (or other energy wavelength) ignited from below the towers as given in your schematic? Why would it produce multiple hot-spots? Why would so many be outside of the towers' footprints?
Stubborn that I am, I don't believe that your premise can satisfactorily answer those questions and match the observed destruction. But you present evidence that I must bring into my own thinking. So maybe both our premises need to adapt accordingly.
[speculation]
A single FGNW, emitting highly energetic neutrons in a cone upwards range of about 20 stories. Imagine that its ignition duration could be pro-longed to, say, 7 seconds. Position this device in the express elevator car at a level near the impact zone. It would first zap the upper stories as observed but then fall (or made to fall). As it fell, it would progressively zap other levels as observed.
Or it could be a pulsed FGNW in an elevator car that fell. Each pulse would be lower in the structure, cadence with the countable boom's of others, but with the sound resulting from decimating shock waves within materials from ablating.
[/speculation]
I'm missing something(s) with my speculation. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Regarding your second email, I was not aware of the neutron and radiation flux, but this would explain the delay in the two towers and WTC-7. I was aware of fracticide, but thought aiming the neutrons upwards would spare devices lower. These discussions are putting a kabash on any beliefs I had of multiple devices per tower.
Although I'm now coming around to a single device that destroyed each tower, evidence exists of other questionably timed explosions in the basement just prior to plane impacts. They were probably working on that gold heist.
I believe that WTC-2 came down first, because (a) its fires were waning and (b) firemen made it to that level and were discussing the (few) pockets of fires and the number of lines needed to bring them under control. Radios were still working. They had to adjust their plans.
You say WTC-7 was behind schedule? I think WTC-7 was planned to go with WTC-1/WTC-2, but its devices may have been neutron impacted by one of the igniting ones. Fizzled. Took them until later in the afternoon to get Plan B operational. The new script was for 5, but yes, that schedule probably slipped.
Thank you for the correspondence and being a sounding board.
All the best,
// mcb
x137 Heinz Pommer : Camera fails 1-5
2018-01-05
date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:00 AM
subject: 1/5: Camera fails
Good morning Mr. Bridges,
I will reply with 5 short E-mails, in order to avoid too lengthy passages.
1. Scintillation on ground level
I name two sources for scintillation. Here is a local short copy (Source was deleted by YouTube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aycMAQP1GPs
However, you have to go through this clip frame by frame, the green, blue, violett spots are hardly visible.
Analysis is attached, taken from: http://911history.de/aaannxyz_ch07_en.html
Regards
date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:03 AM
subject: 2/5: Variety of thermal images
Good morning Mr. Bridges,
be careful with using just a few thermal images (you send me an example). Are we sure that the author published the "hotspots of all three Towers" or are we looking only at the published "hotspots of the Twin Towers"?
The image you sent may be correct for the Twin Towers. But it should at least show SOME activity under Building 7 on september 18.
I do attach further examples: they leave room for a wide variety for speculation and misinterpretation.
Regards
Heinz Pommer
date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:06 AM
subject: 3/5 Fizzle Reactions
Good morning Mr. Bridges,
an atmospheric nuclear recation (fission / fusion) is over within 1 mikrosecond, as the whole device evaporates.
A fizzle reaction (in french: "long feu") takes several milliseconds and has a much lower energy yield, but in the meantime I doubt that it was used on 9/11.
You can get a long energy output reaction (7 seconds) only by:
1. long fusion: having 1 million degree and 1 million bar and sufficient D/T fuel
2. secondary radioactive decay: your bomb must contain a shell which (e.g. through neutron activation) produces highly radioactive (thus short lived) isotopes.
Sounds terrible, but in fact if the whole decay is over in 10 seconds in the rockbed there will be no long-lasting contamination.
It is the opposite of a cobald-bomb, which contaminates for decates (same principle, just choosing an element with a long half-life).
Regards
date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:12 AM
subject: 4/5 Kahlezov's 150 kt yield melt Cavity
Good morning Mr. Bridges,
the size of a melt cavity can be calculated easily, according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing
My drawings are to scale. Khalezov clearly over-emphasized and simplyfied the process.
The crazy thing is:
- 150 kt (as proposed by Khalezov) would create a neat 42 m cavity (supposing only the slow energy input, not the blast wave)
- on the aereal photo we can identify two excavators/machines, laboring a wall which seems to me to be lower that the bathtub's floor (South Tower, upper right)
- on the aereal photo we can identify also work going on, machinery digging sideways under the North Tower (flattened, in the middle)
I would not exclude that we are looking at the remains of the melt cavity. It might not be perfectly round, but flattened by reflection.
On the top of the photo you can see Silverstein's Glacier valley encircled in red, still a riddle to me.
Regards
date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:39 AM
subject: 5/5 Silverstein's glacier valley
Good morning Mr. Bridges,
the understanding of this valley is crucial to the whole event. It can't be a flip-flop decision, honestly said: I don't know what to do.
Fast neutrons penetrate and even cross a brick wall easily, killing anyone behind it (water [hydrogen] has a high cross section).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section
Remark: please note that iron has outstanding scattering values for fast neutrons, but is poor in capturing neutrons (no neutron activation, and mostly stable isotopes anyway).
So, a penetration depth of 10 cm or 20 cm can be easily assumed. But what about 20 m or 50 m (horizontally)?
Same goes with X-ray radiation. Only some sort of relativistic neutrons could do that. It is unclear to me, I can only guess.
The problem is not so accute with the vertical component, as the 400 m high [hollow] building were not a block as a rock, but scattering leaves much space for radiation to hit later, distributing the energy high up. A micro-machine gun, firing upwards.
I have no problem in accepting a fact [if that was the case] that Silverstein valley was formed 10,000 years ago by glaciers.
We can't proove it anymore: the rock under Tower 4 was broken up and carried away. A pity for the smooth potholes (a worker wrote).
I call it: suspicious.
---
In short: we should not "skip" the valley - yet
Our questions should be:
- what about the underground communication tunnels?
- what about the PATH and other subway tunnels?
Curiously enough, the subway runs parallel to Silverstein valley. I find this intriguing, even a possible explanation.
If the South Tower's device and Tower 4 were separated by some brick walls [and very few meters of rock], neutrons could have travelled tens of meters, before depositing their energy under Tower 4.
To quote the worker who said he would miss the beautiful potholes, cited by the NewYork Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html
“I think they should keep it,” he said. “Turn it into an aquarium. Fill it with fish. Do something special — not just another building.”
Regards
x138 Maxwell C. Bridges : deceit in the documentation
2018-01-05
Dear Mr. Pommer,
Yes, I apologize if my small number of thermal images gave a misleading impression. I knew you had access to many more.
As an aside, the thermal images illustrates "deceit in the documentation", something we both hate. You rightly point out that one of the images I sent you might have been tweaked for the purposes of only showing the hot-spots of WTC-1 and WTC-2 for some local goal. But then the image is taken out of context and used elsewhere, and presto WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6 and WTC-7 no longer have any hotspots going forward.
The second attachment (image) is one that appears in many reports showing 9/16, 9/18, and 9/23, and represents in my mind (without substantiation) an area of deliberate deceit. Where are the images from 9/11 through 9/16? The image from 9/23 I speculate was from 10/23 and was accidentally (on purpose) mis-labeled in the documentation, oh my. Because even your third attachment (image) shows a greater area of hot-spots for 9/23. And the kicker is, Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood accepted the data unquestioned and unchallenged from that official report.
[rant]
Maybe because it is our profession, it bothers me when lies are propagated through technical papers.
Were measurements taken promptly, thoroughly, and accurately and repeated in the same manner on other days? Were all measurement dates and data points from those dates included in the report's tables? Did the report discuss correlations listed in the table?
Any casual reader can readily see no discussion on items in the tables. Huge omission. Why would we assume that all measurment dates and data points from all dates were included in the tables and are reliable?
[/rant]
Discovered an error in your presentation in section "7.2.3 The metal fence radiation barrier". One of the images has 1. Burnt cars in front of the fence, 2. Damaged cars behind the fence. It uses this for unfounded and wrong speculation. The police car 2723 with its trunk up was photographed while still on fire and in another location; I've seen it; never should have been propagated by Dr. Wood into her book and never fixed on her website. Police car 2723 was towed to the bridge. As a logical place to stage getting damaged vehicles out (on a flatbed trailer), many or even all of the other cars at the bridge were towed there (or parked there). Therefore, any speculation that says the energy reached the distance to the bridge must be re-stated, because cars weren't damaged there; the chain link fence did not act as a boundary line.
My original concern was that the rock formation below WTC-4 is being attributed either to a nuclear device on 9/11 or God many centuries ago. Two-thirds of WTC-4 were flattened at a neat line with its north annex and where the hot-spots are in WTC-4 (when rendered).
I did some (basic) research into WTC-4 this morning. Discovered it had a tiny overlap with the area covered by the slurry wall where it could have had deep basements. The other side took advantage of old subway lines.
"But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html
"Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any
Owing to the vaults and that 9/11 had extensive monetary motivation, I remain doubtful that the rock formation and WTC-4's hot-spots are related. Geological.
Back to the WTC: Positioning a device at 50 m below street level or 25 m below the lowest garage level seems like it would be an involved project not without notice. For the nuclear chimney to be most effective, this work would have to happen below the elevator shafts in order to use elevator shafts. (But I'm waffling.)
Thank you for the information on longer reaction times. In my research I found an interesting book from Kenneth D. Bergeron called "Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power" 2002. It documents the lies and deceit to get tritium produced at unsafe facilities in the 1980 through late 1990's. Makes even more sense after President G.W. Bush's actions with regards to nuclear weapons productions. Here's me connecting some dots. Tritium is critical for all FGNW. Although it could be manufactured as a by-product at existing facilities, it was a $$$ boondoggle to put production at an unsafe and unprepared facility. The benefit? Easier for some tritium to go missing and then be used in black ops.
Other take away from the book was "deuterium-tritium pellets". A nuclear reaction (power generation) could be controlled and extended by feeding in nuclear pellets. "In an inertial confinement fusion (ICF) reactor, a tiny solid pellet of fuel—such as deuterium-tritium (D-T)—would be compressed to tremendous density and temperature so that fusion power is produced in the few nanoseconds before the pellet blows apart."
https://www.britannica.com/technology/fusion-reactor#ref89119
So again, I seem to be falling into another speculative rabbit-hole. Sorry. But see if anything is worth rescuing.
From your email 4/5, your first attachment is a device placement 50 m below street level. Is this only Khalezov's theory, or are there enhancements from you?
The energy cone depicted is what I have issue with. First, it is depicted too wide, else how did it avoid hitting the spire? Second, what was installed or special about the top floors that they would be decimate first, when the energetic neutrons would have decimated at the same time all levels between ignition level and roof.
In the 2nd attachment to the email having a picture of the escavation site long into the process, you puts in some red markings. For orientation purposes, the building in the top-left is the U.S. Post Office (right?). The gap just below it on the left was from WTC-7. The scape yard in the lower-left quadrant was WTC-6 (and has an area still smoldering). WTC-1 is towards the center but in the lower-right quadrant (where your half circle smiley is). The ramp into the area crosses over what was WTC-3 and lets out between where WTC-1 and WTC-2 were. Both the WTC-5 and WTC-4 were on the other side of the bathtub wall. WTC-4 you have marked with red. Interesting about WTC-2 marked with a red square is an escavator -- as you said -- digging at a level below the bottom of the bathtub wall. Also, a blue pumper truck is still pouring water on it.
Yes, it seems they did dig pretty deep.
What confuses me now is that I thought WTC-5 and WTC-4 had footprints entirely within the bathtub. Turns out they don't, and didn't appear to go that deep either. WTC-4 had some overlap with the slurry wall, meaning a portion of its basement could have gone as deep as the WTC-2. But that overlap is smaller than the 2/3 of the WTC-4 destroyed.
Here's also something I learned today. WTC-6 also had a CIA office and the secret service. The customs office had vaults in the basement to hold contriband confiscated (including money, drugs, weapons).
"Of particular interest was what he found beneath World Trade Center 6. (Kurt Sonnenfeld) says inside the building he came across a vault that had been cleared of its contents before the planes struck."
http://www.mintpressnews.com/fema-investigator-claims-world-trade-center-vault-contents-emptied-attack/218111/
A FB acquaintance call my attention to this video: Chuck Bowden 9/11 Burn Patterns Fission Bomb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVm5S2fbFI
+++
Having written all of the above, I just assimulated your information about the fountain effect. Puts me back onto the fence with regards to deep under-ground nukes (as opposed to being against it). Good work, Mr. Pommer.
I'm still troubled why we see the upper 20-30 stories act on themselves first; why weren't other levels affected at the same time? And why were there distinct waves of activity?
Thank you for your correspondence.
// mcb
x139 Maxwell C. Bridges : stimme nicht mit seiner Schlüsse
{mcb: This comment was made to 9/11 – Das Ground Zero Modell, which was written by Heinz Pommer. It was not directed at Mr. Pommer, but was about Mr. Pommer.}
Entschuldigung bitte ich im voraus für den Sprachfehler.
Herr Pommer hat gute Arbeit bei der Sammlungen jeder Einzelheit, die auf ein nuklaerishe 9/11 andeutet, geleistet. Seine Webseite habe ich mich durch gelesen.
Ich stimme nicht mit seiner Schlüsse, nämlich tiefliegende nuklaere Waffen nach oben geziehlt, mit oder ohne eine (neue) heisse Plasma Zuteil.
So etwas stimmt nicht mit Video-Beobactung, wo die Zerstörungen in Blocken oberhalb der Linie der Flugzeugeinbrüche angefängen haben. Wäre es ein einziges Waffen von unten nach oben abgeschossen, hätten wir die Zerstörungen in selben Zeitpunkt auf aller Ebene beobachtet, wenn auch nicht Zerstörung von unten und das oberere Teil fällt rein.
Ein anderes Problem der Theorie von begrabene gezielte nukläre Waffen ist die Verwendung eines "Schein" Beweis. Die uralte geologische Formationen, die die Mitarbeiter unter WTC-4 ausgegraben haben, sind kein Beweis von solche nukläre Waffen, weil WTC-4 ausserhalb der Badewanne lag, einen Kellergewölber für Gold hatte und dessen Nordgebaudeflügel überstanden.
Meiner Meinung nach, mehrere vierte generation nukläre Waffen (Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons = FGNW) wurden vervendet. Gerichtet nach oben. Zurest auf der Linie der Flugzeugeinbrüche eingezundet, dann jede 10 bis 20 Stockwerke in Reifolge. Wurden auf der "Spire" installiert und davon gerichtet.
Dr. Andre Gsponer hat nie über 9/11 geschrieben, aber er hat viel über FGNW in den Jahrzehnten vor geschrieben.
Ich habe viel mehr auf English auf meinem Blog geschrieben:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Tja, und in bezug auf die Nano-Thermite (NT). Die Tatsache ist, sie wurde nicht überall gefunden. Was gefunden war eine hohe Prozentteil von kleine Eisenkugel, und einige Doktor-titel der 9/11 Wahrheitbewegung behauptet nur NT so etwas erzeugen kann. Falsch. FGNW kann auch diese kleine Eisenkugel erzeugen, und kann viel mehr Beweisstück erklären.
Geschlachte wurde NT in diesem Post.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x140 Heinz Pommer : plasma jet from below
2018-11-03
Hello Mr. Bridges,
thanks for your comments.
Concerning the developing plasma jet from below: I have no technical data to prove my views, its just my estimation.
My statement is based on the analysis of this picture: https://jamesperloff.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/elevators-chematic.png
My view is: FGNW = Tower + Rockbed; in short: a 500 m big thing.
---
Precondition:
1. nuclear fizzle occurred in the [previously upheated] rockbed
2. full containment of pressure and heat directly below the Tower
Effects:
1. the small 5 m deep pit in the granite (according to the construction plans) is critical: it's the bottle neck which will release the plasma
2. the initial upshooting NARROW plasma jet (200 m/s if we take chopper 2's signal) guts out the core entirely, within 2 seconds: eruption on top starts after this
3. the nozzle (= 5 m deep pit) is widening in these 2 seconds as well: from 4 m to approx. 12 m (4 m = original shaft size; 12 m = memorial pool's pit)
4. the "blast-effect" (pressure/eruption with full release of energy) occurs due to the self-opening (evaporation) of the nozzle and lasts about 8 additional seconds
5. as the cavity empties itself, viscous rock fills and seals it: no blast cavity is to be found
Please keep in mind that the new GZM (as published by KenFM) is based on a long-lasting energy input (1 hour approx.).
As well as the jumpers and deformation of rock structures nearby are explained by this long-lasting energy input.
---
I hope to have answered your questions from my point of view convincingly.
Best regards
Heinz Pommer
x141 Maxwell C. Bridges : a fourth state of matter
2018-11-03
Dear Mr. Pommer,
Thank you for your correspondence regarding your theory of a deep underground nuclear device that sent plasma up the elevator shafts.
Plasma is super-heated material, a fourth state of matter beyond solid, liquid, and gas. What was the original material of the plasma sent up the chimney?
Granite containing the plasma? Hum. Then you write it shoots up and guts out the core. A huge problem, because such would have been observable at all levels, and defies what was observed in the immediate aftermath: (in both towers) significant sections of the inner core that remained standing after the outer-shell and floors fell from around it.
You are making the task of explaining the many examples of 9/11 being nuclear more difficult than it needs to be. You wrote something that might be a key to your beliefs.
"My view is: FGNW = Tower + Rockbed; in short: a 500 m big thing."
Paraphrased, you believe "FGNW = a 500m big thing".
No, no, no, no. Paradigm shift is required! Warning! Warning!
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons do ~not~ have to be "big things," and in fact most of them as described by Dr. Andre Gsponer are ~not~ big. Sub-kiloton. More importantly, FGNW can give off 80% of their energy as highly energetic neutrons that deeply penetrate materials. The 20% remaining of its energy is in conventional heat-wave, blast wave, EMP. Aim it upwards, and excess neutrons are sent into air.
If you are aiming the expelled neutrons upwards, but the demolition is more or less top-down, then ignition of upper FGNW won't affect those FGNW below it. One implementation. Another implementation is a pulsing FGNW with a longer energy output and being dropped down the elevator shaft.
You wrote:
"Please keep in mind that the new GZM (as published by KenFM) is based on a long-lasting energy input (1 hour approx.). As well as the jumpers and deformation of rock structures nearby are explained by this long-lasting energy input."
I fail to see how a deep-underground device and plasma shooting upwards would account for the jumpers. Your premise should have affected everybody in the building (e.g., those going down the stairs, firemen going up), not just those people above the impact point.
I regret that this clarification failed to convince me and lowered its plausibility in my estimation. You should google "Dr. Andre Gsponer" with "FGND". Two of the hits will be:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44481406
Think out of the box, and certainly out of the granite hole.
With kind regards,
// mcb
The work of Mr. Heinz Pommer came up briefly in the following discussion.
x142 Maxwell C. Bridges : engine in this firetruck sits further back
2019-12-11
https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=631283050742611
2019-12-11
Just for clarification, the engine in this firetruck sits further back closer to the front axle. So when Dr. Wood implies that the engine melted based on this picture, she got it wrong and it did not.
Don't mean to be taking away from this piece of anomalous evidence that still needs an explanation [that I do have: FGNW].
//
EMP slipping out from the towers from multiple FGNW.
//
x143 Petr Lunák : 9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen
2019-12-11
Petr Lunák
Petr Lunák The answer is here:
https://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch07_en.html
9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen
911HISTORY.DE
9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen
9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen
x144 Maxwell C. Bridges : Studied the work of Mr. Heinz Pommer
2019-12-11
I've studied that work, and disagree. Don't get me wrong; lots of great analysis and collection of evidence. I particularly like camera scintillation which is effectively recordings of real-time radiation.
However, Mr. Heinz Pommer doubles down on singular nuclear devices per tower, deep-under ground, with the towers becoming a "nuclear chimney." Were this the case, we'd see evidence of such over the entire height of the towering being destroyed, probably all at once. Instead, the real evidence shows the destruction of the block of floors above the crash impact level -- it accordians in on itself -- before the pulverized mass passes through that level. There were distinct levels where one can observe the ignition of something.
FGNW fits the evidence better.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
x145 Petr Lunák : we have no proof that this kind of weapon already exists
2019-12-11
Petr Lunák
Petr Lunák Maxwell Bridges thanks for the link, I will look at it.
Mr. Pommer mentiones briefly FGNW in one oh his lectures in England (it's on youtube). If I remember it correctly, he claims, that we have no proof that this kind of weapon already exists, or something like that.
x146 Maxwell C. Bridges : Reputable nuclear physicists, peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal (Cornell University)
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Petr Lunák, I have communicated via email with Mr. Pommer. I've expressed my doubts about energy (or neutrons) traveling up the elevator shaft, doing the damage starting at the 80th or 90th floor, and then going down WITHOUT it being noted at all of the lower levels at about the same time, if not sooner.
I was intrigued by the concept of a pulsed emission, and hold that in reserve as an alternative. A pulsed device aimed upwards but dropped down an express elevator shaft...
At any rate, to Mr. Pommer's comment about "no proof that this kind of weapon already exists": Reputable nuclear physicists, peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal (Cornell University).
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Dr. Gsponer was writing about FGNW for a cool decade before 9/11. Haven't read his book, which was in its 5th or so revision by 2000 (if memory serves me), BUT Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood should have. The revisions are indication of improvements, as in what feedback from other scientists might have provided.
You don't see anyone debunking it. What you do see is lots of people with PhD's in the 9/11 Truth Movement who have ignored it, or any half-assed researched into FGNW.
I'm in the process of ripping AE9/11Truth and Mr. Wayne Coste "a new one" in their so-called "9/11 nuclear debunking" efforts, because they frame everything as "nuclear blast", which is just so first- thru third-generation nuclear weapons.
Here's a quote from my blog posting.
+++ begin quote
Many decades ago, various world governments led by the USA took the position to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available, because publishing such could "enable those with bad intentions." Although most nuclear research does not get a public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of operational details that would help "arm the enemy terrorist with weapons of mass destruction."
The public work of Dr. Andre Gsponer met those nuclear publication requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many decades to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed; (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions [even prior to 2001], indicating assistance from those in the nuclear field.
Those who have professions involving nuclear science (or weapons) in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties [involving charges of treason], or they are left out of all of the interesting research. Besides treason charges, many other penalties involving employment or health & well-being of the individual or family members can be leveraged to keep silent the well educated in science.
"Directed Energy (DE) research and development has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy. There are national security reasons for not revealing certain applications or vulnerabilities. ... Largely shrouded in highly classified environment, directed energy weapons research is conducted by a cadre of closed-mouthed technical wizards."
"THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought", Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005.
+++ end quote
In my research at my institution of higher education (during a period of unemployment when I could follow my hobby-horse), I came across a little book call "Tritium on Ice" by Kenneth D. Bergeron that documented the history and fucked-up politics of how the US went about making sure they could keep their tritium stock piles up, because tritium is instrumental in all modern (FGNW) nuclear weapons.
"In December 1998, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced that the U.S. planned to begin producing tritium for its nuclear weapons in commercial nuclear power plants. This decision overturned a fifty-year policy of keeping civilian and military nuclear production processes separate."
They chose the most fucked up nuclear power plant with the weakest and worst safety measures, because -- I believe -- this would allow them to "disappear" quantities for off-book purposes.
//
2019-12-11
Tobin Barrette
Tobin Barrette Dew
x148 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW are in the category of DEW
2019-12-11
FGNW are in the category of DEW. //
Just so we're clear, the vehicles (like 2723 cop car) were ~not~ damaged at the bridge [as implied by Dr. Wood] but were towed there. I've seen pictures of 2723 while still on fire in the middle of an intersection or so.
Of course, THAT 2723 was torched anywhere is still anomalous and needs an explanation [which I have], but I've seen too many times where Dr. Wood and her Woodsian DEWers mischaracterize the evidence.
Here's the deal, fourth generation nuclear weapons [FGNW] change the paradigm about how energy is delivered to the targets. First- through third-generation devices used nuclear blasts (and heat wave) to inflict their damage.
FGNW, which are already subkiloton yield, release 80% of their energy as targeted highly energetic neutrons which pass right through all material in their path. Only 20% of the yield is in the traditional blast wave, heat wave, and EMP and can be mitigated but not eliminated. Point is, any blast wave is already tactical in yield. [My premise assumes 6-12 FGNW per tower, and also 6-8 in each WTC-6, WTC-4, probably WTC-5. Don't know how many in WTC-7, but could have been there, too.]
When those highly energetic neutrons pass through material, they leave energy in the form of (high) heat behind. Imagine trapped water molecules in concrete. The level of heat left behind would turn that water instantly into steam whose expanding volume pressure would create micro-fractures. Of course, this happens across the entire length, width, thickness of the portion of the material TARGETED. Concrete gets dustified, and it wouldn't necessarily be loud, because it is not displacing large quantities of air.
Metals, like the floor pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors and were woefully under-represented in the debris pile? They would ablate. The leading edge vaporizes so quickly, it sends a shockwave into the rest of the material. Accounts for the tiny iron spheres found in high percentage in the dust. Again, shockwave within the material does not translate into a loud sound.
The wall assemblies were not targeted per se, but were grazed and, in some cases higher up from the ignition point, hit and heated, which gave us wall assemblies ejected as steel doobies and wall assemblies with arcs, and arcs in inner core beams and horse-shoes.
TORCHED VEHICLES IN THE PARKING LOT AND ALONG WEST BROADWAY? FGNW, as was mentioned, do have EMP. Being inside the steel wall assemblies of the building would mitigate this some, but there were window slits and whatnot.
I attribute escaping EMP from the structure for the vehicle damage. EMP hitting line-of-sight metal of vehicles would create Eddy currents. Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat that could ignite things on the metal, like paint, seals, plastic handles, etc. Once something on the vehicle was ignited, more of the vehicle could burn.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Dr. Wood collected lots of evidence, but she doesn't power her DEW with anything real-world, did a shitty job of researching nuclear anything, dropped lots of dangling innuendo, connected no dots, drew no conclusions, and by her own admission is not an end station. Still, the very fact that FGNW are in the category of DEW makes her work closer to be correct than NT ever was.
//
Chapter 6: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine
One of the techniques of disinformation is to mis-use a valid nugget of truth. The large pit that was excavate under WTC-4 is an example. Geologists knew that a strange formation existed under WTC-4, just not its depth or scope. Many who proposed 9/11 nuclear devices often referred to this to support deep underground nukes. Unfortunately, the slurry wall between WTC-1 / WTC-2 and WTC-4 was not affected, so this could not have been the origination point for nuclear devices that affected the towers.
I lean towards the geological formation under WTC-4 existing long before 9/11. Were nuclear devices detonated there, effects would have been more readily apparent at the plaza level. WTC-4 also had gold vault; gold was found loaded in a trailer in the WTC-4 tunnels; the WTC-6 vaults were emptied prior to 9/11. Money has already been determined to be a motivating factor behind 9/11: airline PUT options, money-laundrying when the stock markets re-opened, war profiteering, Homeland Security.
This chapter is incomplete with regards to my interactions with Mr. Lawrence Fine. We've had many, fine, smaller exchanges that repeated in different words what I've written to others on FB. In my eyes at the time, it didn't rise to the level of me bothering to collect those words so they could be re-purposed here.
x150 Maxwell Bridges : primary mechanisms of destruction
2018-03-02
2018-03-02
Dear Mr. Dan Gallagher, Explosives may have been involved, but they weren't the primary mechanisms of destruction. Occam Razor nixes the logistics which amounts to such overkill amounts that not only would they pulverize everything but would have such unspent quantities as to maintain hot-spots for months. Too hard to implement in the scant few days bomb sniffing dogs took holiday before 9/11.
No. Turns out, the evidence for 9/11 having nuclear components slips out everywhere: from the USGS reports on dust, to the evidence of intense heat, to the duration of hot-spots, to the tight security, to the radiation decontamination efforts, to the carting away of evidence without analysis, to the first responder health ailments....
Who planted the seed that is ~WASN'T~ nuclear devices? Nuclear physics professor Steven Jones who accepted unchallenged and unquestioned several stilted government reports, malframed nuclear devices, and didn't even mention Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices. To fill the void, he says the aluminum-iron flakes in the dust for a result of a nano-thermite (NT) reaction (instead of being from the aluminum cladding on the towers corroding with the steel wall assemblies that made the towers white elephants in addition to the asbestos.) When pressed to explain the brisance of the destruction, Dr. Jones said it was mixed with something like RDX that he didn't even test his dust samples for and weren't in the USGS reports. When NT was speculated to have causes several abnormal spikes in the debris pile, Dr. Jones admits "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Of course, he did not speculation into what that was.
No sense distracting the conversation here. You can either go to my wall or my blog (below) if you disagree or think I'm wrong. But I'll warn you that I've been around the 9/11 block ~many~ times and matched this FGNW hobby-horse of mine against the best paid trolls the government can fund, and they've never succeeded in discrediting my sources or concluding premise.
The prima facie case is made for FGNW below.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x151 Lawrence Fine : 9/11 synthesis
2018-03-02
Lawrence Fine Maxwell Bridges https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-synthesis/the-pit/663396007092439/
x152 Maxwell Bridges : researched the formations
2018-03-02
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, I researched those formations. The two options were (1) they came from one of the 9/11 nuclear events, and (2) the geological formations came from God billions of years ago. I conclude #2. Here's why.
The geological formations are under WTC-4, not under the towers. WTC-4 sat partway over the bathtub and partway not. These formations were outside the bathtub that was more or less in tact in that area. So the disinfo campaigns to attribute these formations to either of the nuclear events from towers (or WTC-7) is bunk.
The WTC-4 hot-spots were small and don't match the geological formation.
Final piece of evidence. WTC-4 had gold vaults in its basements (that weren't basement levels inside the bathtub.) They were accessed via old and unused subway tunnels. Some gold from those vaults was recovered -- loaded into a 18 wheel semi and had no bodies. They don't say how much gold was recovered from the actual WTC-4 vault.
9/11 was about money. It involved clearing old debt (from Bush senior); clearing SEC cases, $2.3 trillion in unaccounted for pentagon purchases, put options, laundering money when the markets opened, war profiteering, oil & natural gas reserves, etc. as well as heists from the vaults under WTC-4 and WTC-6. (WTC-6 customs house where they stored confiscated drugs, weapons, money, were completely cleared out.)
Because 9/11 is certainly about money and reshaping the world, the gold vaults under WTC-4 were critical. Even if they don't tell us how much gold they recovered from the vault, they did access the vault.
Thus, there was no major nuclear event happening below WTC-4 that created "the pit," because that would have been throwing away money.
P.S. I discuss this in section 17. Controlling the Opposition of my work.
//
x153 Lawrence Fine : whatever HIGHLY ENERGETIC event
2018-03-02
Lawrence Fine Maxwell Bridges -what leads you to believe the money was there at the time or that whatever HIGHLY ENERGETIC event created this formation had any purpose other than the perps letting us know what they are capable of doing? This event (possibly SINGULAR) probably occurred BEFORE the first aircraft struck
https://www.globalresearch.ca/eye-witness-testimony-is-conclusive-that-north-tower-collapsed-from-controlled-demolition/761
Now, are YOU for "real truth" or are you dis or mis info?
x154 Maxwell Bridges : deep underground nukes is part of the disinformation campaign
2018-03-02
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, your "The PIT" posting doesn't allow comments. However, my FB posting does, as well as my blog.
You are welcome to go to my page or my blog to discuss this further, so we don't distract from the discussion.
Got your response before this was posted. You asked: "what leads you to believe the money was there at the time...?"
FEMA photographer states that WTC-6 vaults were empty when they got there, signifying huge foreknowledge. (So this is to your point.)
Against your point, as for WTC-4, we know it had gold because we have evidence of the 18 wheel semi having been loaded with it and was caught in the tunnels, but abandoned by driver (e.g., no bodies).
Nice pictures of geological formations, but none of them have anything to do with either tower. Too far away. These are under WTC-4. Look at the handy maps that Dr. Wood provides in and with her book and you'll see.
Associating these geological formations with deep underground nukes is part of the disinformation campaign from the ex-Russian agent Dimitri.
//
x155 Maxwell Bridges, Lawrence Fine, Dan Gallagher : geological formation under WTC-4
2018-03-02
Maxwell Bridges "But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html
Maxwell Bridges "Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any
Lawrence Fine Maxwell Bridges -Good discussion although I have no confidence in JWs' research and analysis. I'm a full supporting subscriber to the work Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are sharing. Given my "knowledge", my familiarity with geology and what happens when an extremely energetic event occurs UNDERGROUND. The only type of event that I'm familiar with leave a signature very much like the pictures posted.
Dan Gallagher Maxwell I don’t recall the presence of aluminum flakes in the dust. I do recall the presence of an abundance of iron spheres which result from super heating steel with nano-thermite as well as red paint like chips which actually are nano-thermite as has been shown from analysis.
Dan Gallagher https://www.benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Dan Gallagher, NT isn't the only mechanism that can super heat steel. The question you need to ask, how much would be required to achieve that effect, the pulverization of concrete, and the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. It becomes Occam Razor obscenely unreasonable and a stupid massive logistics challenge that could easily be solved by the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD spending and reaching into the deep and classified nuclear arsenals.
Fourth generation nuclear weapons. Read about them at my blog. Look up Dr. Andre Gsponer. Ask yourself why neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Wood did, although Dr. Gsponer had research into FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11. Peer-reviewed. Enhanced over time with new information.
There was no nano-thermite in the dust. Period. Read the reports carefully, they say there were tiny iron spheres, and the red paint like chips, which were aluminum corroded with iron. Nothing energetic. Dr. Jones speculates how they could have been used, and got caught in this misuse, so had to say RDX was involved, which makes accounting for the duration of hot-spots even worse.
Nobody who champions NT has ever explained how the arches, horseshoes, and steel-doobies were created.
In an earlier version of my FGNW premise, I thoroughly debunk NT in sections 2-5.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x156 Lawrence Fine, Dan Gallagher, Maxwell Bridges : Belief is not evidence.
2018-03-02
Lawrence Fine Belief is not evidence.
Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Dan Gallagher, the abstract of the report you posted already gives chain-of-custody issues. They didn't test those dust samples for RDX or anything else explosive. When this was to the attention of Dr. Jones and A&E9/11Truth several years later, first response was they didn't have the capacity to test for such (wrong); second response was that maybe the shelf-life for detecting such expired, so if we come up with null results, the OCTer and gravity-only believers will have a field day.
The USGS dust samples were much more comprehensive. Listed in their tables are precisely the finger prints and nuclear decay fingerprints of 9/11 having nuclear components, but beyond the tables, no explanation is given.
//
Dan Gallagher They actually applied heat to he nano chips and they exploded with the energy signature of nano thermite.
Dan Gallagher Maxwell, you propose 4th gen nukes but refute 2nd gen nano thermite. I wonder why. The scientists refer to it as super NT due to the energy signature. As far as application goes who knows if bomb dogs would alert to it? It was apparently painted onto the steel.
Lawrence Fine Dan Gallagher - I'm familiar with this research which is ongoing. Mark Basile will, hopefully continue with his project which should add to the arsenal of the honest truth community. The current analysis "spectrum" and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which includes the red gray chips which were examined under a scanning electron microscope revealed NANO PARTICLES which ain't available to we, the peeps. When heated to the point of reaction the spectrograph indicated the components of a NANO Thermite.
Maxwell Bridges Dear Dan Gallagher, the dust samples that had chain-of-custody issues. Who knows who added what and when? Why weren't RJ Lee group and USGS on board and reporting the same in their dust samples?
And the same good Doctor -- PhD in nuclear physics -- did a monumental ~BAD~ job in trying to steer the public away from nuclear considerations. I detail this in section 12. "Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" of that same earlier work I just linked.
I am not so dogmatic as to claim "no NT was ever involved in 9/11 at the WTC." Shit, no. Such stilted positions play right into the hands of disinformation. Sure, let's say that NT was involved. They threw it and the kitchen sink at the WTC! But that doesn't make it the primary mechanism of destruction.
Curiously, the "kitchen sink", toilets, concrete slabs, etc. were also things that weren't in the debris pile. What were there was pulverized. How did NT (mixed with any amount chemical-based explosive like RDX as speculated by Dr. Jones) do that? And why?
FGNW answer this. FGNW is DEW; highly energetic neutrons were targeted. When going through the concrete and other things with residual water in the structure, the water turned to expanding steam so quickly, pulverization was automatic.
The steel pans and trusses supporting the concrete floors are under-represented. I say they ablated and resulted in iron spheres in the dust.
The wall assemblies acted like a faraday cage, but they still experienced in cases volume heating, which explains the steel doobies. The inner core wasn't targeted as much, but did have instant volume heating creating arches and horseshoes. NT doesn't explain this.
Dr. Griffin wrote a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored." NT ignores all of the anomalous steel creations.
Please, look at either of my works on the blog, "Expand all", and look for the name "Dr. Andre Gsponer."
//
Chapter 7: FGNW Discussions with AlienScientist, Henry Hansteen, Adam Fitzgerald
This chapter has exchanges about the Pentagon plane, or lack thereof, and other attempted FGNW discussions.
x158 Maxwell C. Bridges : AlienScientist
2018-05-28
{mcb: Tried to email to AlienScientist@alienscientist.com, but came back because address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email. Tried to post on AlienScientist.com Facebook page. Tried to message through Facebook.}
Dear Mr. AlienScientist,
If you prefer a different name or salutation more gender or education-level appropriate, I'll be happy to accomodate.
Recently a quote from you came up in some disinformation game playing by a suspected bot with a habit of using 9/11 statements from others as his own (plagiarism), but in a manner resembling a snippet (including remnant HTML from the source) being recalled from a database. The algorithms are suspected of scraping the spiteful blog of my chief opponent on a narrow 9/11 theme into its database, and one such entry had a legitimate quote from you and acredited as such.
"If you see anyone attempting to "debunk" someone using character assassination methods, you should automatically see this as a direct signal that they have absolutely no valid argument whatsoever."
The quote isn't the reason why I'm contacting you, but I knew you'd be curious as to what it was. It was just the seed to have me look up the source of the quote, and his body of work.
Kudos, AlienScientist.
I've been there before over the years. I may have run into you on other forums. I haven't explored your blog completely from A-Z, but have seen enough to know that we have many parallel views.
I'm writing you because I seek rational discussion about a particular aspect of 9/11 at the WTC. I've been around the 9/11 block, been duped by many premises, but persisted in my efforts for Truth that uncovered the errors in those disinfo-seeded beliefs. My one remaining hobby-horse for 9/11 is Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGNW).
"9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
I earnestly seek feedback on the latest evolution in my thought (above). I'd like it debunked legitimately if possible, because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject.
I respectfully ask you to take FGNW on in a serious and mature manner. Maybe it becomes the newest button in your "Debunk Bin". But naive and trusting are two of my super-powers, so my hope is for a new button under "Conspiracy", because my research and analysis will have convinced you.
I do not encourage reading my blog cover-to-cover, because such a repetitive bore it has become even for me. However, my blog represents the evolution on my thoughts. My blog demonstrates my other super-powers of being persistent, organized, religiously fanatical (about Truth), and even a touch OCD while exposing my high-road tactics and game plan.
Legacy is a bitch for those with dubious intentions. I've experienced individual comments, individual postings, Google search results, entire databases (of comments), and entire blogs disappearing from the ether, during play or in post-operation clean-up efforts. Less baggage when their persona goes into a new playground. Any cursory scanning of my rabbit-hole blog shows that most of my blog postings are composed of re-purposed exchanges from other forums (including email): my sincere efforts to defend this nuclear truth, or to be set straight. Plenty of baggage.
I see in your blog under "Debunk Bin" both "Dr. Judy Wood" and "Mini Nukes" that you have already tried to address subjects related to my FGNW. If you frame nukes in an imprecise and inaccurate manner, straw-men and distractions. My hobby-horse is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up: 9/11 FGNW.
I encourage you to save and re-purpose our discussion (if deemed worthy), because I will be doing the same. Unless the discussion is on my blog, don't expect a real-time parallel discussion-track on my blog; it'll be compiled and posted afterwards. I'm a lone nut, so no sense dividing my singular forces needlessly.
I have the capacity and courage to change my opinion with the proper application of science & analysis of all the evidence. When such happens, I will publicly apologize and correct the record, such as I did for my years being an active "no-planer (at the WTC)" under the clever duping of September Clues.
An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques, up to and including banishment.
Why?
One reason: If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
My earnest hope is for you to convince me (of no-nukes on 9/11) or to let me convince you of FGNW.
Because I am a fair and generous fellow, allow me to call attention to "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW", the immediate predecessor to "9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case". Sections 2-5 slaughter the nano-thermite sacred cow. It also addresses specifically and individually the very reports that your "Debunk Bin -> Mini Nukes" brings up.
I am looking forward to our correspondence, our exchange of ideas, and our search for 9/11 truth. If you would prefer another forum for this Jefferson-Franklin style discussion, I am amiable.
P.S. My Achille's heel on my 9/11 FGNW premise, is that my naive and trusting super-powers make me susceptible to believing in portions of the "alien agendas", like humans not evolving on this planet but rather having alien DNA inserted into our nearest genetic cousins (at the time) to make us, intelligent slaves. To be sure, this "alien agenda" explains in my mind why we poison our planet and stockpile nuclear weapons. I learned calculus, it's pretty trippy, and Sir Isaac Newton probably had information seeded. As did the semi-conductor industry.
(You can address me as "Mr. Bridges.")
// mcb
x159 Maxwell C. Bridges : a particular aspect of 9/11 at the WTC
2018-05-28
2018-05-28
Maxwell Bridges => Alienscientist.com
May 28 at 4:58pm ·
Dear Mr. AlienScientist,
I'm writing you because I seek rational discussion about a particular aspect of 9/11 at the WTC. I've been around the 9/11 block, been duped by many premises, but persisted in my efforts for Truth that uncovered the errors in those disinfo-seeded beliefs. My one remaining hobby-horse for 9/11 is Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGNW).
"9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case"
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
I earnestly seek feedback on the latest evolution in my thought (above). I'd like it debunked legitimately if possible, because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject.
I respectfully ask you to take FGNW on in a serious and mature manner. Maybe it becomes the newest button in your "Debunk Bin". But naive and trusting are two of my super-powers, so my hope is for a new button under "Conspiracy", because my research and analysis will have convinced you.
I see in your blog under "Debunk Bin" both "Dr. Judy Wood" and "Mini Nukes" that you have already tried to address subjects related to my FGNW. If you frame nukes in an imprecise and inaccurate manner, straw-men and distractions. My hobby-horse is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up: 9/11 FGNW.
I have the capacity and courage to change my opinion with the proper application of science & analysis of all the evidence. When such happens, I will publicly apologize and correct the record.
An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques, up to and including banishment.
Why?
One reason: If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
My earnest hope is for you to convince me (of no-nukes on 9/11) or to let me convince you of FGNW.
I am looking forward to our correspondence, our exchange of ideas, and our search for 9/11 truth. If you would prefer another forum for this Jefferson-Franklin style discussion, I am amiable.
// mcb
x160 Alienscientist : Dear 9/11 Disinfo Ops Center
2018-05-29
Alienscientist.com
2018-05-29
Dear 9/11 Disinfo Ops Center:
We have received your message, and are not interested in debating or discussing debunked disinformation theories, which only lead to more speculation instead of actual suspects.
If you are not naming names, and digging up evidence which can be used to prosecute actual suspects for actual crimes, then you are spreading "conspiracy theories" (aka lies and disinformation) and are therefor wasting everybody's time.
Here is the CIA explosives for sabotage manual:
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-sBYjmHG5phtmtHck/CIA%20Explosives%20For%20Sabotage%20Manual_djvu.txt
{mcb: Full text of "CIA Explosives For Sabotage Manual.pdf (PDFy mirror)"}
Thermite is listed.
FGNWs are not.
I am not here to convince anyone of anything.. There is a growing movement of people who still believe the earth is flat... I am not here to fix stupid, or try to attempt rational debate with stupid.
Unless you are fingering SUSPECTS, You are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist, spreading conspiracy theories, helping the elite to hide factual evidence of real crimes amid a sea of rumors and specualtion.
And for that I tell you to go fuck yourself.
How's that for correspondence?
x161 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW hasn't been debunked
2018-05-29
FGNW hasn't been debunked. Hasn't been addressed. We'll categorize that as your first lie with me.
What your work attempted is debunking of two strawmen: mini-nukes and DEW. Both were worthy of being debunked for how they are malframed. But alas, your work didn't even achieve those goals, because it has fundamental weaknesses in what it assumes are true, accurate, and complete, like the reports of tritium.
Stop trying to change the playing field to "naming names". You've got other postings for that.
I did my research into the matter. You have not. Can't even be bothered to read my article. For shame.
BTW, thermite in whole or in part isn't listed in the tabulated results of the USGS study of the dust. Neither are conventional explosives. Glaring hole.
You know what is listed? The trace elements of nuclear hijinx as well as their decay elements, plain as day in decay order in their bloody tables.
Nuclear means on 9/11 do a great job of narrowing down the list of suspects.
Thank you for your clever comment: "And for that I tell you to go fuck yourself."
//
x162 Maxwell C. Bridges : Using something from 1987 to debunk something from 2001
2018-05-29
Referencing a 1987 manual "Explosives for Sabatage"? This is the time frame when Star Wars & SDI (their initial) names were just starting to ramp up, although nukes had been tweaked for decades prior. I think they achieved their goals of a low-radiation tactical nuclear device with OKC in 1995, but for sure with the WTC in 2001.
Yanno. Using something from 1987 to debunk something from 2001? Not your best effort.
Try reading my (blog) posting linked and study its evidence. Obviously, you haven't. Failing your objectivity test.
Take it and its predecessor apart section by section. Let it be known that the latter completely trashes NT as being the primary mechanism of destruction. NT is a limited hang-out. If you knew more science, alienScientist, this would be self-evident. NT can neither explain the pulverization, nor the duration of hot-spots.
FGNW, on the other hand, explains ~all~ of the evidence as well as all of the lame attempts to steer public thought into other avenues and the cover-up right on down to infiltrating public forums. It is the only topic that no one discusses rationally. You are case in point.
//
x163 Maxwell C. Bridges : real deals
2018-05-29
2018-05-29
Enjoyed the article. I would leave the following in your list of real deal:
- David Ray Griffin
- Webster Tarpley (although I sometimes dislike his style)
However, I have issues with the following being considered the real deal on 9/11:
- Steven Jones
- David Chandler
- Richard Gage
- Kevin Ryan
- Alien Scientist
Why? I'll just cut right to the chase. My hobby-horse is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up: 9/11 FGNW (fourth generation nuclear weapons). It and its predecessor Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW make the case. The latter, however, slaughters the nano-thermite sacred cow.
An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques, up to and including banishment. Why?
If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
I'll summarize work documented on my blog. Dr. Jones supposedly debunked nuclear involvement. But:
(a) Dr. Jones accepted unquestioned & unchallenged many government (sponsored) reports on tritium and nuclear isotopes, when closer inspection reveals their weaknesses: timing of samples, number of samples, and correlation of the data. In light of the EPA and NIST games, no reason these reports shouldn't have been exposed.
(b) Dr. Jones framed nuclear devices as big. He never mentioned neutron devices or fourth generation nuclear devices. He never mentioned the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, which was available.
(c)_ To fill the void, he came up with nano-thermite, which was never measured in any of the dust samples by USGS, Paul Lioy et al, etc. What was measured were a high percentage of tiny iron spheres from the dust samples taken from the lobby of a neighboring building. They make a conclusion that only an NT chemical reaction could achieve this, when in fact FGNW could and more easily, too. When called on NT not having the brissance for pulverization, Dr. Jones back-pedals and said it was mixed with RDX or some such. He and A&E9/11 never measured their own dust samples for such under the ruse that if they had exceeded the "sell-by" date for measuring traces of such, then the OCT opposition would have a field-day with their gravity-driven collapses.
(d) The postulation of NT being mixed with any other chemical means exasperates a second problem, the duration of underground hot-spots. Massively unreasonable quantities of NT/RDX/? would have been required, unspent from their original pulverizing purposes. Dr. Jones back-pedals on this, saying in 2012 "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Yet no research was done into this.
NT is a limited hang-out. Can't do pulverization by itself; can't account for hot-spots without massively unreasonable unspent quantities; can't account for horse-shoes, arches, steel-doobies, and meteors and other evidence presented in Dr. Wood's efforts.
Dr. Wood is closer to the truth than NT, but has disinformation. She drops a lot of dangling innuendo that she never connects together into a cohesive whole, and also gives nuclear means a short-shrift. No mention of Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, either.
Mr. David Chandler has great 9/11 physics videos, but (a) he did not attempt to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's book despite the book being provided, (b) he would not speculate into nuclear mechanisms, despite have the education to understand such, (c)_ he believes a real plane hit the Pentagon.
Dimitri Khalezov is disinformation in his deep under-ground nukes whose detonation would not have matched what was observed and recorded.
Again, a consistency in the framing of 9/11 is to call any nuclear speculation kooky and to not entertain any rational discussion thereof. Yet, traces of nuclear hijinx were measured by the USGS, including decay elements, and were presented in their data tables but not in any clear text explanation of those tables. Tritium, tritium, tritium is another dead-give away of FGNW.
Recently I came across proof about as good as any Geiger counter of the true radioactive nature of WTC. In the first article, section 9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras.
// mcb
x164 Herr der Elf : discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown
2018-05-29
{mcb: The alias "Herr der Elf" belongs to Maxwell C. Bridges and was used in that reddit discussion.}
2018-05-29
An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempt at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques. Why?
If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
Meanwhile, the fact that 9/11 (at the WTC) had nuclear components leaks out of all government reports and the mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement. Can you say "tritium"? Or how about the USGS study of the dust showing trace elements of nuclear fission as well as their decay elements?
Dr. Jones framed nuclear devices improperly, never mentioned neutron devices, never mentioned fourth generation nuclear devices, and accepted unquestioned & unchallenged many government (sponsored) reports of things measured as being the final word on what was measured.
Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood both have a glaring omission in their nuclear research: Dr. Andre Gsponer.
[9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case](http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html)
FGNW isn't mini-nukes, nor deep underground nukes. FGNW isn't DEW as narrowly defined by many (including Dr. Wood), but is very much in the category of Directed Energy Weapons. FGNW is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up.
It is a testament to the levels of disinformation at play to suppress this that others instrumental in the 9/11 Truth Movement "never went there." Kind of damning that all of the alleged "open-minded" supporters of Dr. Wood won't recognize that Dr. Wood herself claims her work wasn't the end-station on 9/11 Truth. Yet, true to disinfo intents, they try to park understanding in Woodsian limited hang-outs.
Dr. Jones said that NT had to be mixed with something like RDX to account of the pulverization, yet never bothered to measure his dust samples for traces of such. Dr. Jones said in 2012 that something maintained the hot-spots, not just NT. Yet performed no research into that "something".
// HdE
x165 Henry Hansteen : McGee is bad news for 9/11 truth
2018-11-21
2018-11-21
I'm against censorship, but McGee is bad news for 9/11 truth. He attacks the most credible, respected, qualified, and professional 9/11 truth researchers for believing that a large plane hit the Pentagon. McGee is trying to divide, discredit and obstruct the 9/11 truth movement by focusing on one area of contention rather than the many areas of agreement.
x166 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. McGee sounds like a real rotten person
2018-11-21
Mr. McGee sounds like a real rotten person, whoever he is.
Mr. Craig McKee, on the other hand, is not. A rather upstanding chap, if I do say so.
"Most credible, respected, qualified, and professional" researcher doesn't mean that what they champion is 100% truth. My word, the GOP said the same thing about Dr. Zelikow and his role as public myth builder on the 9/11 Commission.
Mr. McKee has his hobby-horse that those "most credible, respected, qualified, and professional" researchers ignored with regards to the Pentagon. No plane struck it. (And this gave rise to the whole disinfo campaign about no planes at the WTC.)
And wouldn't you know as just another rinky-dink coincidence, those same "most credible, respected, qualified, and professional" researchers completely fucked up their efforts into proving (or not) that 9/11 at the WTC involved fourth generation nuclear devices, my hobby-horse. Dr. Jones has a PhD in nuclear physics, and he accepts unquestioned and unchallenged various government reports on radiation and tritium, frames nuclear weapons out of wack, and fills the void with NT which can't go the distance in explaining the evidence without obscenely massive quantities.
//
x167 Henry Hansteen : what do you hope to accomplish by attacking
2018-11-21
Maxwell, since McKee won't answer this question, maybe you can. Other than divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9/11 truth movement, what do you hope to accomplish by attacking the most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers and fo…See More
x168 Maxwell C. Bridges : "holding accountable the most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers"
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, you are the one who brings up space beams. If you can't accurately reflect the positions of your debate opponents, your sincerity in these discussions is called into question.
FTR, Mr. Craig McKee has different reasons (based on the Pentagon) for "holding accountable" "the most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers" for mistakes, misinformation, if not blatant disinformation in their works.
My hobby-horse FGNW is one that Mr. McKee does not ride. Funny, in my research into DEW and FGNW in the libraries of my local institute of higher education, I discovered that "beams from air planes" (ABL) were operational in 2001, isn't applicable to 9/11, but is very applicable to California fires today.
"... focusing on a few areas of contention rather than the many areas of agreement." Is it not practically biblical if not Christian as well the belief that you have to be faithful in the little things in order to be trusted with and prove your faithfulness with the larger things?
Mr. Craig McKee's (and other's) noble contention that those "most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers" pulled some fast ones in their Pentagon research. One little thing.
But don't let me put words into Mr. Craig McKee's mouth. I will say this for me on my FGNW hobby-horse topic about that exact same group of "most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers": THEIR RESEARCH SUCKED !!! Another little thing they weren't faithful in. When Dr. Jones poo-poo-ed nuclear weapons, he did not mention FGNW. His literature review contained no references to Dr. Andre Gsponer who's been writing about FGNW since the 1990's. (Same omission by Dr. Wood.) Read more of my complaints in the blog posting below.
Between Mr. Craig McKee's hobby-horse and my FGNW hobby-horse, we have TWO important data points that make up a trend line into the premise of how even the 9/11 Truth Movement was infiltrated and controlled by seemingly the "most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers". Thus far and no further they were charged to go; no nukes, because the figurative nuclear fallout from such public revelations even today could be damning to the status quo.
FTR, if they were truly rational and open-minded human beings (and not paid to promote an agenda short of one that names the domestic terrorists within our government), they could look at my 9/11 FGNW case (or the Pentagon case), let themselves be convinced of the overwhelming evidence of (nuclear) hijinx, and apologize for having misled the public. NO HARM, NO FOUL.
But this they won't do.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10155820409191269?comment_id=10155830555616269¬if_id=1542828112272844¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
x169 Maxwell C. Bridges : pricks your bubble about his willingness to debate
2018-11-21
Gentlemen, Gentlemen. Truth & Shadows was a debate forum. Even these hallowed Facebook forums can be respectable debate forums.
Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, the very fact that your comments are permitted to exist here under Mr. Craig McKee's postings kind of pricks your bubble about his willingness to debate. And I'm sure that a posting could be made where you and he had your reasoned, rational debate.
But alas, when you approach the table with your head already tilted, is it any wonder why you'd be promoting skewed and even wrong views -- not on a specific area but -- on the subject of willingness to debate on a specific area. Moving the playing field, anyone?
//
x170 Adam Fitzgerald : everyone saw the plane crash into the building
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges
The pentagon issue is a one sided debate for me. No one saw a fly over, everyone saw the plane crash into the building. McKee peddles nonsense. As evident in his views regarding Moon Landing and sandy Hook.
x171 Maxwell C. Bridges : No one saw a crash.
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, correction. No one saw a crash. (Not even any of the dozens of surveillance videos they confiscated and haven't released. All it would take is releasing one video with conclusively a plane on it to fix the record; instead, all we got were three inconclusive frames from a parking machine.)
Many people saw a plane and later heard an explosion and/or saw smoke at the Pentagon. They assume one anomaly led to the other. No one, not even the police officers getting gas at the (since razed) convenience store across the high way, saw a plane clip light poles and plow into the building.
Get your facts straight.
//
x172 Adam Fitzgerald : You have zero facts
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges
1. Over 87 eyewitness accounts who were in the vicinity of the pentagon saw the plane crash directly into the building. More who saw the plane descend from the sky heading toward the Pentagon.
2. There are two videos which were near the security gate captured the details of the plane. Wayne Coste prepared an exceptional 5 hour presentation showing the damages done from the plane. The frame by frame camera wont be capturing a plane whole going at 500mph.
3. Yes many people saw the plane. Yes many heard the impact. You have zero facts supporting a fly over which no one saw.
x173 Maxwell C. Bridges : Cough up the URLs
2018-11-21
Number 2 is a flat out lie. Two videos? Wrong. But I'm willing to be a believer. Cough up the URLs and I'll apologize for calling you a liar. (However, were are the videos they confiscated? According to you, no issue there.)
And gee. Mr. McKee who I respect has already called you a liar for different reasons. And I found your claim about refusing to debate another lie, because this is a debate forum. The impression of your honesty isn't a good one.)
BTW, as we learned from the NPT @ WTC carousel, the frame rate of videos is sufficient to capture a plane going 500 mph (even if that speed is hyped.)
NPT at the Pentagon isn't my hobby-horse. You and I have had our go-arounds on my hobby-horse: fourth generation nuclear devices. You accel at hypnotic suggestion, but not science, reason, or facts.
Just like I used properly applied science to debunk NPT@WTC, I can do the same to prove NPT@WTC. Namely, the light poles impacts would have crippled the aircraft out of the sky before impacting the Pentagon, *if* that was the path the (flyover) plane flew.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
//
x174 Adam Fitzgerald : videos are frame by frames
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges
The videos are frame by frames. They are from two security cameras. Both are shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzT0QnwtTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyPbUoe2iA
McKee is the only liar here. He has been challenged by me to a debate regarding the Pentagon, 3 times, which he refused. Not my concern actually since he is coming from an angle which no one supports besides his followers who in turn also cannot support. If you support nuclear weapons for the WTC, then you are every bit as delusional as McKee.
x175 Maxwell C. Bridges : diving into the maw of blatant disinformation
2018-11-21
I've made my 9/11 truther career out of diving into the maw of blatant disinformation and rescuing the nuggets of the truth, lest they be caste away and forgotten when the disinformation vehicle drives off the road into the weeds and over the cliff.
A nugget of truth from that great disinformation vehicle called "the No Plane Theory" at the WTC and promoted by "September Clues" is: imagery manipulation did happen with regards 9/11.
Both of these videos are exhibit A and B towards that thesis. Thank you for posting them.
And here I'll concede a point and offer an apology. "These" parking lot video cameras had an insufficient frame rate to capture the plane at 500 mph, and this rate was probably made worse by the frames they edited out. When I was writing about video cameras, I was referring to news cameras.
The omissions on 9/11 speak louder than what they include. The frame rates of surveillance cameras on other buildings were probably higher than the parking videos and would have captured clearly several frames with a definitive plane. Whether or not this assumption is true, the fact remains that this doctored video is all that remains. (Need I point out that for many years, only three frames from these videos were released. Who knows what Hollywood magic was bestowed on the footage in the intervening years?)
P.S. I've stated many times that NPT at the Pentagon isn't my hobby-horse. But were I to defend it, it is the physics of the light poles, wing attachments, velocity-squared in the energy equation at high velocities, and lift that destroy the argument of the alleged flight path and a real plane impact.
The same principles of physics used to explain how real aircraft (but not necessarily the specific alleged aircraft) crashed into the towers leaving seeming cut-outs and outlines, having seemingly passed in the same number of frames going into building as through air, and having aircraft parts pass completely through the structure and get launched some distance to bounce off a roof and land in the street... These same principles explain why the aircraft did not fly the alleged Pentagon crash path.
The energy in question at high velocity is significantly greater than at low velocities. Energies greater than the strength holding materials together. Instead of "bouncing as cohesive wholes", they shatter and perchance there might be some fragments that bounce.
Equal and opposite energies, and energies about a fulcrum. When the wings (allegedly) hit a light pole, materials of wing at impact location might shatter, and certainly deform, and become less aerodynamic. The wing acts like a lever against the shoulder / fulcrum where the wing attaches, certainly weakening the connection. But then the plane hits another light pole. Both wings each allegedly hit at least two light poles (if memory serves me).
If this were true, I maintain that localized shattering damage to wings from such high velocity impacts would have made the aircraft uncontrollable, if not unable to maintain lift and crashing all over the lawn and very much short of the Office of Naval Intelligence's in the Pentagon.
For this reason, it would make sense to stage the broken light poles so that the alleged flight path could be flown by a real aircraft and hit its targets. But this is where I get off the hobby-horse and others hop-on and read you the riot act on what little to no evidence were found of a real aircraft, and that real eye witnesses describe a completely different flight path.
Why are you defending the government's public myths so vigorously?
//
x176 Adam Fitzgerald : a skeptic, nor truther, nor debunker
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges
You made an error here, in which i am defending the government narrative. I dont adhere to their summary of what happened that day.
I myself am a skeptic, nor truther, nor debunker. However these planes that were hijacked were real, the crashes were real...the passengers and hijackers were real.....However the actual conspiracy isnt from the superficial, nor from the planes which some like you discount. Its from who these hijackers were and how many were there....who were the pilots and who were they not. The humorous aspect about no planers is that they think 4 planes werent hijacked that day nor crashed....yet have absolutely no idea that there were supposed to be more planes hijacked and crashing into other targets. One of the biggest "conspiracies" of 9/11 is automatically dismissed by no planers and they have absolutely zero idea that they are doing it in the first place. Thats because they are vastly ignorant about the geo-political.
x177 Maxwell C. Bridges : constantly conflate two (or more) separate events as having the same cause
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, one of the tricks of those working the public myths of 9/11 was to constantly conflate two (or more) separate events as having the same cause. Becomes but child's play to disprove it in one instance and then boastfully proclaim it isn't applicable therefore in any other instance. Clearly, this is illogical, insincere, and deliberate distraction.
I agree that real planes were involved. Whether or not they were hijacked or truly had the personnel manifests alleged, this is a valid point of contention. (SimVictim is a real thing, proposed even in the Operation Northwoods document rejected by JFK. Made easy today with social media.)
The definitive case has not been made to prove who got on what planes, to prove the planes took off and flew completely their alleged flight paths, etc. THIS IS A GLARING WEAKNESS IN THE O.C.T. AND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Lots of assumptions are made and dots supposedly connected, but lots left out too that would draw a different picture. How many military exercises and games were going on during these events? Was inserting false blips into the systems part of it?
I am convinced real planes crashed at the WTC, but not at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Because those are real instances of valid "no planes theories", we see the creation of September Clues and NPT at the WTC. When it is debunked, guilt by association it tries to debunk NPT at the Pentagon. A tactic right out of the disinformation playbook.
But I already know your sincerity in these discussions, having experienced you before on "Debunkers vs. Truthers" from last year.
//
x178 Adam Fitzgerald : a "half-planer"
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges
So you are what i call a "half-planer", WTC planes real, Pentagon and Shanksville no hijacked planes. And yet you question my sincerity while you hold the fantastical beliefs of drones or fake planes as your valid explanations for the two aforementioned destinations. The difference between me and you is quite clear, you deal with belief. I deal with knowledge. Its a certian fact that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon and Flight 93 at Shanksville. You can not deter those facts to fit your narrative. You can try ut like many others you will faiil, terribly.
x179 Maxwell C. Bridges : "certain facts" are not
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, very clever, your mockery.
What you call "certain facts" are not.
Shanksville: first responders arrive, and there were no bodies. No luggage. No seats. No wings. No tail. Nothing to indicate that an aircraft crashed there, let alone the alleged commercial aircraft.
You assume all alleged victims even existed and weren't inflated by SimVictim means to reach a threshold in the public's mental state. You assume that certain victims (and hijackers) got on the planes; that the planes flew their course; that those perished at the alleged crash sites. Not to discount the demise of certain victims, but it is a big ass assumption to say they died when the alleged planes crashed. The military games in progress on the day leave ample room plane swaperoos...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3noExmsCRyg
And with this weakness, your house of cards belief system into the righteousness and absolute correctness of the official conspiracy theory gets support pulled out.
//
x180 Adam Fitzgerald : cant rationally argue for their irrational scenarios logically
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges
1. First responders from Somerset County, Listie, Berlin, Pittsburgh, EMS, Fire Depts. all came. Including Wallace Miller county Coroner (who happened to collect 600lbs of human remains from the site) who were involved in the search and rescue operations. They found numerous items, which included human remains of passengers, passengers belongings, clothes found on the tree tops and even ID cards. Your claim of first responders finding nothing is blatantly false. Pieces of the plane were small but they found much of it around the impact zone.
https://www.firehouse.com/historical-incidents/news/10495986/pennsylvania-firefighters-share-bond-with-flight-93-families?fbclid=IwAR1PHVF2Hn7XOFVE4osBiWvXMKq9JxkijYHIe5cdMuWRzkORXJLSTxqqHFY
https://www.tribdem.com/news/somerset-county-coroner-recalls-aftermath/article_b5535054-54a1-11e7-9a49-8376d4b335ff.html?fbclid=IwAR0qhDful2amBRT-sQ4Kp1EhTyjKAZqhP8EJco6KMOd2IGOndmt9v_VGdzg
2. Its actually you who automatically assumes these victims were fictitious as well as the hijackers aboard the planes. Its only you who has the mere convenience to assert claims without providing evidence (even thou you have none). It is you who asserts falsely that these flights didnt fly according to the data recorded by the NTSB. It is you who falsely asserts that these planes didnt exist.
And this is the best you have, conjecture. But i expected nothing better than this coming from you and others like you like Craig McKee and his merry band of speculators. You literally have nothing left but to dismiss everything i post as a rebuttal because you dont have a factual counter. You have conjecture. That is it.
This is why no planers wont debate in a moderated video setting. Its because they cant rationally argue for their irrational scenarios logically.
x181 Maxwell C. Bridges : "researchers" talk about third & fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) with any depth
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, let's aim your ire where it is deserving, such as at MYSELF. For valid reasons, I have attacked THE RESEARCH (and hence conclusions) of "the most highly respected, credible, qualified, and dedicated researchers..." And in doing so, ding the respect, credibility, and qualifications of them, and certainly their dedication, because God damn it! Their research should have taken them into FGNW.
But for all of the adjectives you put in front of their names, it boils down to the old computer expression: garbage in, garbage out.
Show me where those "researchers" talk about third & fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) with any depth or correlating tabulated evidence and videos with a supposition into their usage. Don't take this as a plug for either Dr. Wood or Dimitri K., because like Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Jones, their disinfo job was to undermine the truth, not discover it.
But FGNW at the WTC is my hobby-horse, not Mr. Craig McKee's. But it relates to this discussion, because it has overlap in personnel with the "most highly respected, credible, qualified, and dedicated" players who poo-poo a Pentagon flyover. While we're talking Pentagon, Mr. McKee has never advocated use of a missile, but I have along with a distracting low flyover.
If you wanted to exact precise damage and contain overshoot of the destruction, an airplane crash has too many unknowns such as the physics of 500 mph wings getting crippled or shattered upon impact with light poles and therefore not getting the aircraft to the Pentagon in order to cleanly wipe out all of the ONI investigating agents and their records into the missing $2.3 trillion.
So with your deep pockets, you hedge your bets. Flyover to support the ruse, but a cruise missile launched nearby to plow a path and planted explosives from the re-construction to assure a clean operation.
//
x182 Henry Hansteen, Michael W. Lurie : No nuclear bombs
2018-11-21
Henry Hansteen
Henry Hansteen Maxwell Bridges, WTF is FGNW? No nuclear bombs were detonated in NYC on 9-11-01. That's also disinformation that harms the 9-11 truth movement.
Michael W. Lurie
Michael W. Lurie Oh, the incredible irony.... ;-)
x183 Maxwell C. Bridges : argue your losing position on my FB wall
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, you're welcome to argue your losing position on my FB wall under an appropriate entry, or on my blog under an appropriate posting. I've made my case; my arguments are cleanly laid out. Go through one by one and destroy them. Please! Disabuse me of my beliefs with a convincing case that analyzes all of the evidence properly.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
//
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
x184 Henry Hansteen, Michael W. Lurie : nothing worth reading
2018-11-21
Henry Hansteen
Henry Hansteen Michael (details don't matter) Lurie wrote - nothing worth reading as usual. ;-)
Michael W. Lurie
Michael W. Lurie Hank, will your lying ever cease? I expect not.
x185 Maxwell C. Bridges : where you are welcome to debunk FGNW
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Here is a FB link that coincidentally references an article by Mr. Craig McKee where you are welcome to debunk FGNW.
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2006367319624446
Please, come forward and prove your premise that "No nuclear bombs were detonated in NYC on 9-11-01." Tritium, tritium, tritium are already causing you problems. But please, I beg you! Save me from the disinformation... by providing properly applied science to all of the evidence.
Disinformation that harms the 9/11 Truth Movement is of the kind that stops critical thinking in cul-de-sacs of nanothermite that isn't an explosive, doesn't pulverize things, needs other explosives mixed with it to achieve even close to the effects observed, and without massively obscene quantities cannot account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
A fun game to get at truth is to get two or more disinformation premises to go head-to-head. So let's take disinfo Dr. Wood's " "horseshoes", "arches" (or "sags") and steel doobies and kindly explain how disinfo Dr. Jones NT accounts for them? What quantities and placement make them possible?
//
x186 Henry Hansteen : siding with Judy Wood
2018-11-21
Henry Hansteen
Henry Hansteen Maxwell Bridges oh wow, you're siding with Judy Wood and calling Steven Jones disinfo? Looks like I was right about you from the get-go.
Henry Hansteen
Henry Hansteen http://www.journalof911studies.com/.../Hard-Evidence...
Henry Hansteen
Henry Hansteen And of course, nano-thermite can be highly explosive. You're either shockingly ignorant of the relevant research, or deliberately spewing disinformation. Doesn't matter which - you and your absurd nonsense are no friend of -911 truth.
https://digwithin.net/.../the-explosive-nature-of.../
Manage
DIGWITHIN.NET
The explosive nature of nanothermite
x187 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bravo on the misrepresentation
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Bravo on the misrepresentation, but you don't get any points because you already attempted that trick against Mr. Craig McKee and attributing him positions he didn't have.
I call your attention to Section 12 of this blog posting. Read it and consider it the starting point for discussion. It and the sections in front of it completely shreds Dr. Jones' "Hard Evidence..."
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
All disinformation has a solid foundation of truth, before injecting error and wrongness meant to misinform. Dr. Wood is no exception, and neither is Dr. Jones. Hell, everything written about 9/11 is at best misinformation, so only the nuggets of truth in each can be relied upon.
I brought up Dr. Wood because she highlighted several notable anomalies: horse-shoes, arches (e.g., sags), and steel doobies.
David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Yet with regards to the evidence collected by Dr. Wood, it hasn't been disputed. Worse, oh so much more worse, is the fact that your cabal of "the most highly respected, credible, qualified, and dedicated researchers" DO NOT ADDRESS IT, not even in a lame attempt to get their NT to explain it.
So yes, Mr. Hansteen, you've staked your position and expressed your premise, and I'm having you prove it. Convince me, bro, and I'll shut up and offer public apologies.
//
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x188 Henry Hansteen : spewing absurd, blatant, and long ago corrected disinformation
2018-11-21
Henry Hansteen
Henry Hansteen Maxwell Bridges why are you spewing absurd, blatant, and long ago corrected disinformation, like nanothermite isn't explosive? A few minutes of research would show you that you're dead wrong about that, too. Seems like whenever the name Craig McKee pops up a bunch of disinformation trolls show up too.
https://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/?fbclid=IwAR2XNIoFeu-4sAs2JA8sn8OwwYs4azHVGq8JSDiraILLmDYSPJ2l4Zav4Vs
DIGWITHIN.NET
The explosive nature of nanothermite
x189 Maxwell C. Bridges : starts off with a lie
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, that article you post in response starts off with a lie.
"Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings."
What was found in the dust was not NT. Instead it was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres -- and this from a report from an insurance company who analyzed the dust IN THE LOBBY of Deutsches Bank (that they repaired and then demolished.)
Your experts then did some speculation into saying that NT "may have been the source" and extrapolated back to approximately how much NT would be required. The answer was massive and unreasonable from a logistics point of view, but the experts pressed on with their speculation. NT not having the necessary brisance, the main expert (Dr. Jones) suggested it was mixed with something faster, like RDX. Funny, Dr. Jones didn't test his samples for RDX or any other accelerant. Dr. Jones made a convincing case that NT might have been the cause of six measured spikes in the pile temperature. Yet, when it came down to brass tacks, Dr. Jones said "Something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT." Did they investigate into that other thing? No. Should be huge red flags to the veracity of Dr. Jones.
The company that measured the high percentage of iron spheres did not measure RDX or other things. Neither did the USGS. IF YOU WOULD HAVE READ MY BLOG POSTING (which clearly you didn't), you'd know that the USGS did find Uranium and traces of nuclear decay, handily tabulated into tables, yet no plain text discussions as would be expected in a disinformation ploy. Tritium, tritium, tritium. And new evidence in the form of Camera Scintillation proves that GZ was radioactive.
Come, debate me on my FB posting or my blog. My arguments are laid out and divided into section. Take it on section by section so you can be thorough.
Bottom-line, until you do, you're just spreading bullshit and disinformation that you and the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 never vetted or questioned or validated.
NT is a limited hangout sacred cow, and you know it.
//
x190 Henry Hansteen : nanothermite isn't explosive
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell Bridges why are you spewing absurd, blatant, and long ago corrected disinformation, like nanothermite isn't explosive? A few minutes of research would show you that you're dead wrong about that, too.
https://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/?fbclid=IwAR2XNIoFeu-4sAs2JA8sn8OwwYs4azHVGq8JSDiraILLmDYSPJ2l4Zav4Vs
DIGWITHIN.NET
The explosive nature of nanothermite
x191 Maxwell C. Bridges : Why have your 9/11 Truth heroes never addressed all of the evidence?
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, why are you promoting bullshit that has never been vetted about NT?
A few minutes of research into FGNW would reveal that it answers ALL OF THE 9/11 ANOMALIES.
Why have your 9/11 Truth heroes never addressed all of the evidence? Come on. Show me where Dr. Jones or Dr. Harrit or Mr. Gage talk about how NT would be installed in the building to turn iron beams into horse-shoes and arches? Where do they explain how NT can create steel-doobies?
Where do they explain Dr. Cahill's analysis of the dust/air?
Where do they give FGNW a fair shake to see if the Cinderella shoe fits? They don't. They don't take on Dr. Wood's work with any more than mockery or ridicule, because to do so would necessitate acknowledging nuggets of truth that they'd have to explain. They never do a deep dive in Dr. Wood -- who has lots of dangling innuendo, doesn't connect dots, and has no conclusions -- to debunk or collect relevant pieces of evidence.
But please. I welcome your discussion on my FB wall, on my blog, etc. Take my premise apart piece by piece, but be sure that your NT explanation for the evidence is valid.
//
x192 Maxwell C. Bridges : Peer-reviewed in a reputable journals
2018-11-21
Mr. Henry Hansteen, please refer to this article: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Peer-reviewed in a reputable journals. Was writing about FGNW a decade before 9/11. The above article came out BEFORE Dr. Jones Reputiation and BEFORE Dr. Wood's book. Such stellar researchers these were not to have missed Dr. Gsponer when looking into modern nukes as being a possible answer.
They drew a line in the sand when they infiltrated the 9/11 Truth Movement. All of the bullshit NT, beams from space, deep underground nukes, gravity driven pile-drivers... are fallback positions to keep the public from knowing that the USA nuked itself (with the help of Israeli operatives and multiple war games.)
Why? Because decades of media hype (not all of it applicable to all devices in existence or being planned) into nuclear devices put a stigma over the revelation of anything nuclear. Might have lead us to nuke the scape-goated enemies instead of invasion and stealing of resources.
//
ARXIV.ORG
[physics/0510071] Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and…
x193 Henry Hansteen : you're naught but a troll and a waste of time
2018-11-21
Maxwell Bridges nanothermitic material can be highly explosive. Why are you saying it isn't? If you lack the honesty and integrity to admit it when you're proven to be dead wrong, then you're naught but a troll and a waste of time.
x194 Maxwell C. Bridges : Was hearing loss and deafness a condition experienced by survivors and first reponders?
2018-11-21
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Dr. Sunder of NIST was absolutely correct when he stated that conventional chemical explosives (which would have included Dr. Jones' NT even mixed with RDX) would have been deafening within 1/2 mile.
Was hearing loss and deafness a condition experienced by survivors and first reponders? No.
Just like Dr. Sunder was able to have a straight face with no lying ticks when he said that the first 18 stories of WTC-7 collapse happened slower than gravitational acceleration. Perfectly true, but to come to this conclusion, he had to average three stages of demolition, of which Stage 2 NIST says was identical to gravitational acceleration and was over 8 stories or 100' of structure.
It is easy to debunk speculation when you know what the true source of the added energy is.
The pulverization of the towers was relatively quiet (compared to the expectations from the explosions of conventional chemical-based devices) is that some of the FGNW possibilities are essentially variants of neutron bombs. FGNW do not rely on the medium of air to cause destruction; quick changes in air pressure from such explosions would be loud.
Instead, highly energetic neutrons can deposit their energy deep within molecular structures. Air gets a little heated up. (Reports of 1st responders coming across the bridge noted increased outside temperatures). But the energy goes quietly into the material. For materials with latent water molecules trapped inside, think of a microwave on a closed container: pop. Trapped moisture instantly turning into steam exhibits large forces of the expanding volume to blow apart the material. (Dry wall, porcellain, humans). Other material directly in the line of fire, like the metal trusses and pans holding the poured concrete would "ablate". Look that word up.
Look up my references. Stop trying to argue with me from a position of ignorance. Know your enemy's (argument). Study it and refute it in a logical manner.
I'll wait.
Going off half-cocked when you haven't even read either of my blog articles linked... Well, it doesn't reflect well on you or your arguments.
I fucking did my research. Now you do yours! Your job is made easier because I've given you targets to aim at: section by section, point by point.
P.S. The point of four or more events happening at once is that in the aftermath, we'd conflate evidence from one event being relevant to another and munge everything together and come up with a one-size-fits-all solution. The reality is that each building destroyed requires analysis independent of the others. One method of destruction doesn't have to apply to all. Furthermore, my argument has plenty of room to accept NT as being present and involved, but that NT was not the primary mechanism.
The either-or argument is lame. I say they had generals and majors with itchy trigger fingers literally just dying to deploy some of the nuclear toys developed over the 55 years since WWII and available in the USA's and Israel's arsenals.
The overkill pulverization is proof that they threw everything including the kitchen sink at the destruction of WTC. However, overkill pulverization doesn't make sense as a design goal, because it is so glaring an energy sink that gravity can't explain. It only makes sense as an unplanned side-effect of the mechanisms chosen.
//
Chapter 8: FGNW Discussions with Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock, Olé Pedersen
Persona Management Software, I guess. Because why would you assign multiple human agents to monitor individual Facebook forums? More effective to get one agent to be multiple personas and tag team.
x196 Paul Donnelly : Neils Harriet paper on nano-thermite
2019-05-23
Gaylord Campbell
You're mentioning 'loose change' not me. And I suggest you research professor Neils Harriet paper on nano-thermite, as opposed to ordinary thermite. Please don't attempt to put words into my mouth , as you have no idea what I'm thinking.
The WTC's were incredibly strong structures which both withstood the initial impacts..until they were taken down in a controlled demolition, as evidenced by the pyroclastic nature of the dust clouds that removed the concrete.
The building effectivley collapsed to dust, apart from the steel beams.
x197 Maxwell C. Bridges : paper on nano-thermite is a red-herring and a limited hang-out
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I regret to inform you that Professor Neils Harriet's paper on nano-thermite is a red-herring and a limited hang-out. Rather than distract from the thread here (and because I'm lazy), I'll just refer you to my blog posting whose early sections slaughter the NT sacred cow.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
However, my FGNW is still within the realm of controlled demolition, so we are in agreement there.
Here's where I'm going to reach into the maw of disinformation and rescue a nugget of truth. Dr. Sunder of NIST when validly poo-poo-ing chemical based explosives (despite not replacing it with anything that could solve the energy equation), he mentioned that the number of conventional explosives would have been deafening.
You see, much of the destructiveness of chemical-based explosives is the sudden change in air pressure that is the medium for the energy. That translates into LOUD, in addition to overkill amounts to account for pulverization.
FGNW, on the other hand, emit highly energetic neutrons in a directed fashion (hence falling into the category of DEW). As they neutrons pass through materials, sometimes energy is left behind in the molecular structure. Picture this for content that has residual water molecules (e.g., drywall, concrete): the water molecules hit by the FGNW DEW go from liquid directly to super hot gas (steam), whose expanding volumetric pressure blows the material of the trapped water molecules apart. Dustification. Steel in the path (like the floor plates and supporting trusses that are under-represented in the debris pile) would ablate, the leading edges vaporizing so quickly that it sends a shockwave into the material to blow it apart -- which would account for the tiny iron spheres measured in the dust all over.
To quote "The Cat in the Hat", "and that is not all I can do..."
Remember the NIST videos of the debris pile that they suppressed for half a decade or more? Turns out, these SHOW radiation. Dr. Cahill who came a month after 9/11 and was measuring air quality downwind determined that some particles in the air were heavy metals and were being continually regenerated by the hot spots that burned for literally months.
For those with eyes open, the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event slip out all over.
And PhD's like Dr. Jones, Dr. Harriet, Dr. Wood had a role to keep us parked in lesser conspiratorial methods. Why? Because any whiff of nuclear involvement would have had figurative fall-out to agencies and leaders.
The linked article is not the latest. This has overlap but is the latest.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x198 Kevin Brant : submit another paper—through the peer review process
2019-05-23
If you believe the Harriett’s paper is incorrect, then you should submit another paper—through the peer review process—which supports your POV. That is how science is done. Until then your assertions about nuclear devices is just another BS Internet rumor (of the disinformation variety).
x199 Sam Lock, Pads Buhl, Olé Pedersen, Kevin Brant : from the emergency exit signage
2019-05-23
Sam Lock Kevin Brant The limited radioactive elements were from the emergency exit signage. No nukes exploded there that day.
Mads Buhl Gaylord Campbell Which 19 hijackers...?
Olé Pedersen
YES. Were there any hijackers Mads Buhl ?
Paul Donnelly Maxwell Bridges
So you're basing your 'debunking ' of NT on the fact it would have been impossible to transport 60 tonnes of material into a largely empty towers over a six week period under the guise of say an elevator maintenance scheme? With the Israeli security firm in place? Good luck with that..
Professor Neils was hounded out of his postat Copenhagen for publishing a scientifically sound document, but I suppose this was part of his cover as a deep state operative.?
Paul Donnelly
Olé Pedersen
Interesting isnt it?
Yes, they were there , but on the actual day?
Enjoy Christopher Bollyns take on this a la 'the little drummer girl'. They all had false IDs didn't they?
Olé Pedersen
Paul Donnelly Do you have link
Paul Donnelly
Olé Pedersen I just watch his stuff on YT it's pretty informative for the WTC stuff , but I tend to stick with Craig for the Pentagon info.
Olé Pedersen
Paul Donnelly I also agree pretty much with Craig McKee
Olé Pedersen
Paul Donnelly Do you have a kink to Christopher Bollyn you referred to ?
Paul Donnelly
Olé Pedersen
Not posting for some reason but the YT vid with Sean Stone is a great primer.
Olé Pedersen
Paul Donnelly What respons? And who is Sean Stone?
Paul Donnelly
Olé Pedersen Sean stone is son of producer
Olé Pedersen
Ok. I do not know anything about that
Kevin Brant
Olé Pedersen Sean Stone & Christopher Bollyn
https://youtu.be/wZuj59S_WN0
x200 Maxwell C. Bridges : demonstrate that you didn't read my article
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, you wrote: "So you're basing your 'debunking ' of NT on the fact it would have been impossible to transport 60 tonnes of material into a largely empty towers over a six week period under the guise of say an elevator maintenance scheme?"
No. This is not my (complete) argument, and demonstrates that you didn't read my article. For shame. Way to discredit your own objectivity!
If 60 tonnes of NT is the figure you want to use, then let it be known that this has to be transported and installed in 3 buildings in the scant few days prior to 9/11 that bomb sniffing dogs took as holiday. Furthermore, does this 60 tonnes also account for the overkill amount needed for (a) pulverization and (b) duration of under-rubble hot-spots? I doubt it. RTFM, because I do the calculations.
Furthermore, how does 60 tonnes of NT account for: steel sags, steel horseshoes, and steel doobies? What placement of NT accounts for these unique artifacts?
You wrote: "With the Israeli security firm in place? Good luck with that.."
I knew they had Israeli operatives in the form of (a) art students in the WTC, (b) camera operators who danced on top of vans, and (c) minders who were neighbors of the patsies. Israel has nuclear weapons, warned the US of the attack, which is why they were filming it. Israeli security? Not a problem for installing nukes.
You wrote: "Professor Neils was hounded out of his postat Copenhagen for publishing a scientifically sound document, but I suppose this was part of his cover as a deep state operative?"
Dr. Wood suffered a worse fate. Dr. Jones complains about bad treatment.
But wait a minute! The premise has a hole in it called "scientifically sound document." Was it? Did it address all of the evidence? Or did it have an agenda going in to possibly attribute certain features to NT?
Why didn't he considered fourth generation nuclear devices? They are much easier to install and can easily generate the tiny iron spheres in the dust (e.g., high heat), as well as the necessity for the tritium report song-and-dance, not discussing the traces of nuclear decay in the tables of the USGS analysis of the dust, etc.
//
x201 Paul Donnelly : Harriet's paper was peer reviewed
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
Go ahead and try and push your mini-nuke theory.
Wouldn't it leave a tiny bit of radioactivity which would have been picked up on.? I didn't realise it was a competition between Dr. Woods and Professor Neils Harriet about who had been persecuted the most .
There is no hole in my argument as Professor Neils Harriet's paper was peer reviewed. The only agenda being displayed here is yours, and the fact is NT could only have been produced in a handful of laboratories in the US at the time, a fact shared with 'Amerithrax'.
A fourth generation nuke would have vaporized half of Manhattan and would not have caused the controlled demolition of the Towers, visible by the detonation flashes as it came down. But I'm not going to convince you,
You certainly aren't going to convince me , so let's just concentrate on getting the perpetrators put behind bars, hopefully we will at least be able to agree on that.
x202 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Andre Gsponer's work on FGNW was also peer reviewed
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I prefer the phrase "fourth generation nuclear weapons" instead of "mini-nuke", owing to the already established and often false connotations associated with the latter.
In fact, your comment illustrates the false propaganda perfectly: "A fourth generation nuke would have vaporized half of Manhattan and would not have caused the controlled demolition of the Towers, visible by the detonation flashes as it came down."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Dr. Andre Gsponer's work on FGNW was also peer reviewed, although to my knowledge he has not written anything about 9/11. Point is, Dr. Harriet, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Wood among others have this as a glaring omission in their stilted works.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
// Part 1/2
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly Part 2/2
Allow me to call your attention to section 9. "Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras" in the following as one example of many that 9/11 had radiation.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
In addition to the radiation that you can actually see in the NIST videos, there is the tritium report, the USGS analysis of the dust, etc. The evidence leaks out all over.
Take your time and review the material.
//
x203 Paul Donnelly : mini-nuke theory implausible at best
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
So the dust samples you collected in your survey are all legit and above board but Professor Harriet's are in some way suspect because they dont fit your narrative. ? Have fun tying yourself into knots trying to explain that one.
I've already said that I find the mini-nuke theory implausible at best and that you aren't going to convince me otherwise as it doesn't fit the way the buildings came down.
Bottom line, You haven't convinced me, and I reject your analysis.
Maxwell Bridges
Hate to break it to you. {mcb: Meme similar to the 20th Century Fox logo but with the words "NO ONE CARES".}
x204 Maxwell C. Bridges : demonstrating how much you don't care... by posting two comments to my one
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, congratulations on having read two / three lengthy reference items and gleamed all that was important in them in just over one half hour! Kindly point out all the errors that didn't convince you of FGNW.
Nothing like demonstrating how much you don't care... by posting two comments to my one. Nothing worthwhile from your second comment prevented it from being appended to the first comment, so you wouldn't come across as an ignorant spammer too chicken shit to wade into substantiated information that might burst his widdle bubble.
You are absolutely correct in your assessment about me not being able to convince you, because you refuse to do the leg work to understand the premise. And because you have a paid agenda to not be convinced.
To say that you reject my analysis? Without having read it. Bravo! Way to expose your lack of integrity and objectivity.
Run along now. Your presence here is no longer needed. //
x205 Paul Donnelly : I read your your analysis, It's just incorrect..
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
How much are you getting paid to schill?
Hope it is worth it you wanker
I read your your analysis,
It's just incorrect..
And it's not up to you who stays or goes, I believe this is Craig McKee's page?
Maxwell Bridges
That's the difference between you and me , I realise there are multiple scenarios that are possible,
I prefer Northwoods myself but admire field McConnell's Boeing remote-fly scenario as equally plausible.
You on the other hand are straight in with the Ad Hominem's just because I hold a differing opinion.
I am allowed my opinion to say that mini-nukes don't work for me. I would also like to state that this is a Pentagon site and this whole thread is off topic.
Don't you have enough WTC sites you can share your Pearl's of wisdom with?
x206 Maxwell C. Bridges : identify what was in error.
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, Mr. McKee and I go back many years. He doesn't appreciate me posting nuclear topics, particularly under the 757 thread, but I'm not the one who brought it up first, and I've been posting links that would take the sincere to my blog where they can continue the discussion.
You wrote: "It's just incorrect."
Doesn't cut it. Doesn't even prove that you read it. Your argument would be helped if you at least quoted from it and identified what was in error.
Sorry, dude, but such wanking effort makes you a projectionist with your "paid to shill" comment. And your two comments in a row? Spam much, I see.
The difference between you and me, Mr. Donnelly, is that I'm willing to do some research and change my views based on what I learned. You are not. You won't even read the articles, not even the ones that slaughter your sacred cows.
Had you been to my blog, you'd see many re-purposed discussions where I won many a debate because my opponents were too much of agenda-toting shills to even READ my argument... and they, like you, were PROUD of their ignorance. Kind of violates one of the rules of war that "you should know your enemy." Can't debate appropriately if you don't know your opponent's position.
This thread alone has links to three blog articles from me. You know how to reach me.
//
x207 Paul Donnelly : more Dr Woods fluff
2019-05-23
Well Mr Craig McKee has my deepest sympathies.
I read your blog and it is just more Dr Woods fluff.
It is incorrect.
The towers wouldn't have fell like that.
Why would I quote your blog? It is factually inaccurate. No nuke was detonated.
I'm sorry I cant be of more assistance but mental health is not my field of expertise...
Help is out there dude, you only have to ask .
x208 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW is ~not~ "more Dr. Wood's fluff"
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, clearly you did not read my blog, because FGNW is ~not~ "more Dr. Wood's fluff." Nowhere do I suggest it was one device per tower, but because of the nuclear propaganda that has you duped, you think all nukes are the same, are large, have the same radiation signatures, have the same nature... They don't.
Not only did you not read my blog, you did not read the PEER-REVIEWED article on a reputable science website about FGNW by Dr. Gsponer.
Major fail, Mr. Donnelly.
If you can't quote from my blog and point out the errors, then all you are attempting is hypnotic suggestion. With your single-nuke comments, you're giving book reports without having read (and certainly not understood) the book. Bravo!
Run along now. Your shilling here for limited hang-out premises is no longer required.
//
x209 Paul Donnelly : a teeny tiny nuke
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
Yes I didn't read any of it.
My bad, it was only a teeny tiny nuke,
That's what you're going with?
??????
Still Nobody cares..
Remember, little baby steps, you can do it.
x210 Maxwell C. Bridges : hypnotic suggestion fails
2019-05-23
Oh, you are just so damn brilliant, Mr. Paul Donnelly! Love your admission that you didn't read any of it, despite trying to give the impression that you had and that it was supposedly incorrect.
You couldn't even be bothered to read the PEER REVIEWED article from Cornell University that talks about "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons".
"Teeny tiny nuke, That's what you're going with?"
Your hypnotic suggestion fails.
You write: "Still Nobody cares."
Can't even get that right, and end up contradicting yourself with your very comment. You cared. How ironic.
Now take your baby steps and walk away. Don't comment. You've already shot your integrity to hell and exposed your agenda. Buh-bye!
//
x211 Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock, Daniel Coble : Another one who didn’t read the article
2019-05-23
Paul Donnelly
Maxwell Bridges
Yes extremely small..
Sam Lock
Maxwell Bridges What other elements are produced when a nuke goes off? You do not see those other elements in the debris. You only see tritium that powers the emergency exit signs.
Daniel Coble
Another one who didn’t read the article, but who is armed and ready to enforce the dogma of “No Nukes at the WTC”
Paul Donnelly
Sam Lock thank you.
x212 Maxwell C. Bridges : MY FAVORITE piece of radioactive evidence has got to be the NIST videos
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Daniel Coble, I echo "thank you". To Mr. Sam Lock, I point out that if he is astute enough to have read way down into this thread and determined that the subject has turned into one about Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), then he ought to have also seen the icons and banners to the supporting material and been able to click on it. But failing that but while still reading with comprehension, he probably oughta shoulda seen how his back-slapping colleague, Mr. Paul Donnelly, was being dinged because in his responses and by his own admission he did not RTFM.
I'll give Mr. Sam Lock a hint: the other elements that are produced when a nuke goes off depends on its composition (Duh!), but most of the newer ones could be classified as fission-trigger-fusion and essentially modified neutron bombs [which is why nobody writes about that once feared and grossly misrepresented weapon].
The primary output is highly energetic neutrons aimed upwards and only detectable very promptly with special equipment. Steel that wasn't directly in the line of fire or at a distance might still receive some lower-energy neutron bombardment which leads to embrittlement and could be the reason the Deutsches Bank after repairing its outer face was demolished.
The fission-trigger does leave the standard traces (alpha, beta, gamma), but being only the trigger and not the payload, they aren't quite as lingering after 48 hours, which is when the earliest radiation measurements clock in at.
The fission-trigger can also be deduced by Uranium and its decay trace elements that USGS dust samples had in correlated quantities sample-to-sample. Although the elements appeared in the data tables of their report [while coincidentally nothing relating to nano-thermite], no plain text explanation is given in the report to point this little factoid out.
Tritium is key to all FGNW weapons. Can the cover-up be more ludicrous than a report whose stilted purposes limits them to speculating about alleged building content that would lead to the tritium measurements [late and very late, spotty, tiny sample set] at a small number of water run-off points [at WTC-6, I believe]. Supposedly aircraft exit signs, sights on weapons, and time pieces (e.g., wrist-watches) could account for what was measured. Obviously because weapons or means of destruction weren't in the scope of the report, they weren't considered. In the process, they redefined trace amounts to be 55 times what it normally would have been.
HERE'S THE SHOCKER. Dr. Jones, Dr. Harriet, Dr. Wood, et al accepted this report unchallenged and unquestioned as the total truth and the total picture on what tritium was present and measured. As the trend line in other government reports already proves, the report shouldn't have been accepted at face-value.
MY FAVORITE piece of radioactive evidence has got to be the NIST videos that were sat on for half a decade or more and that actually allow you to see radiation being emitted from the pile. Same principle in how your smart phone with the right app can become a handy geiger counter. I leave this as an exercise for you to pursue and validate, but my article does have discussion and links to get you there quicker.
//
x213 Paul Donnelly : C'mon, little baby steps
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
C'mon, little baby steps,
You can do it.
How's your moms basement btw?
So what , they placed NT in WTC 7 for a CD , but put a mini nuke into the other two for a CD ..
A CD with mini nukes..
You are out of your Godamn mind. ??????????
x214 Maxwell C. Bridges : been on this carousel before
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, did they really place NT in WTC-7? It could have been FGNW as well. Please use the correct nomenclature, because otherwise it is a very glaring tell that you haven't RTFM. How do you expect to refute something without reading it, studying it, and knowing what it is? Hypnotic suggestion? *Finger-Snap* That spell is broken.
Because I have been on this carousel before, I am looking for an easy-out, and I'm sure Mr. McKee doesn't relish having nuclear devices discussed under his pentagon non-plane (although Chandler & Jones are a bridge between the topics).
Therefore, I encourage you to go to my blog and debunk either one of my articles in their comments. [I have it on moderation, but will publish relevant comments.]
Take a lesson from our patron saint of 9/11, Dr. Griffin, address my article section-by-section. Tear it apart. Anything less is, well, simply hypnotic suggestion by either a government agent or a duped useful idiot too proud to discover what he was duped by.
I did my homework; I did my part. I don't need to re-discuss it here, and certainly not before you've familiarized your ass on what FGNW is and how it applies.
Prove you're objective. Prove you're open-minded. Prove you're reasonable, intelligent, and not agenda-toting. First step... Baby-steps, as it were, is to RTFM.
//
x215 Paul Donnelly : I would have to value your opinion
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
At this point , to have any effect I would have to value your opinion...
The only reason you are pushing mini-nukes is to disinfo NanoThermite.. Let's see how many people agree with that statement.
x216 Maxwell C. Bridges : very limited imagination
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, obviously I don't agree with your statement: "The only reason [I am] pushing mini-nukes is to disinfo NanoThermite."
You have a very limited imagination if you think that could be the ~only~ reason. I can think of another reason right off the top of my head: FGNW is the TRUTH and where the evidence leads. If you follow Dr. Griffin's advice that no relevant evidence should be overlooked, I can think of lots that NT overlooks and doesn't explain: arches, sags, horseshoes, steel doobies, meteor, duration of hot-spots.
I've already proven how NT doesn't go the full distance, and you have tripped over your own agenda by not going into that work to determine if it has any merit.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
You'll notice that I use information for A&E9/11 Truth, but I take the evidence where it needs to go and don't park understanding in cul-de-sacs that stop short of what the evidence and research says it should be.
Show that you are a sincere seeker of truth and an objective individual. RTFM.
//
x217 Paul Donnelly : I find you very amusing
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
That's ok pal, you think what you want, you don't have to convince me.
Christopher Bollyn joins the dots for me in a far more lucid and convincing manner than your self serving conjecture ever will. As is my right to hold a different opinion as it is the truth. But let me guess, you will refer me back to your blog for..
How many times is this? I've lost count.
??????????
But no hard feelings, I find you very amusing ????
x218 Maxwell C. Bridges : how many times have you ignored following reference links
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I don't know. How many times have I referred you to either of the write-up's on my blog. It was really to save both of us a ton of time. Saves you time and embarrassment from asking questions that have already been answered; saves me time from copy-and-pasting those answers in here and spamming this forum.
How many times I pasted in a link isn't the right question. The right question is how many times (and counting) you have ignored following reference links and gave your hypnotic suggestion of a book report without having read the material in question?
Shows that I am sincere in wanting discussion and having my premise debunked or supported.
Shows that you are not sincere.
If you were exploring my blog, you'd run across at least two instances of me TOTALLY PUNKING AND PWNING debate opponents because they couldn't objectively review material on their own. If they couldn't find someone else's work that they could copy-and-paste, they couldn't speak to the truths therein.
One fellow I GAVE a copy of Dr. Wood's book just to get us onto the same literal page for discussion what was good, bad, and ugly. He ran out a generous clock on reading the book. Admitted finally that he didn't. Then bragged that he physically destroyed the book to make bird cage liner. I mocked him on this mercilessly for quite some time. He tries to re-write the deal. He tries to say that the overlap between the website and book made the deal invalid. He weaseled all over the place. He maintained this LIE about having physically destroying Dr. Wood's book instead of venturing a good, bad, ugly review of the same for TWO AND A HALF YEARS, and was eventually caught in this blatant lie.
Don't be like this fellow. Dinged his integrity big time.
It happened with Dr. Wood's website and book that I was just mining for evidence, not her non-conclusions.
It happened with this link, peer reviewed and all, oh my: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
It happens with my blog that extracts relevant information from all over and brings it together to make the case.
I've got my ducks in a row. You do not. You are proving how closed-minded, un-objective, un-inquisative, and duped you really are.
If you've got anything valid left in your bag of rational discussion tricks besides HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION and BOOK REPORTS WITHOUT READING THE BOOK, now is the time to prove that it includes READING and attempting to UNDERSTAND the substantiating material.
Chop, chop, young man! Prove that you aren't a shill. Debunk my work (and its substantiating material) legitimately and fairly.
Otherwise, now would be a good time to STFU and simply go away. I don't relish PWNING you, but I will if you are less than genuine.
//
ARXIV.ORG
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
x219 Paul Donnelly, Daniel Coble : Your material is flawed
2019-05-23
Paul Donnelly
Maxwell Bridges
That's exactly the point. Your material is flawed.
It's just a sad attempt to undermine the Nano-thermite . I mean, think about it, if it really was mini-nukes you'd have been at least threatened by the deep state, wouldn't you..
The only punking and pawning I saw was in your own mind. But thank you for confirming that you are just regurgitating Dr Woods work, which has a small following in the truth movement but never gained the required momentum due to it's long winded nature.
Daniel Coble
Are there comments from Donnelly on this thread? I don’t see any.... Maybe he blocked me....
x220 Maxwell C. Bridges : flawed is your research and debating abilities
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I just posted a PEER REVIEWED article from Cornell University's physics department, and you have the audacity to call it flawed WITHOUT HAVING READ IT!!!
Bravo! Way to point out your shilliness! You take the cake! Such an eloquent debater and logical beyond anything Mr. Spock could dream up.
What is flawed here is your research and debating abilities.
BTW, my work does NOT regurgitate Dr. Wood's work. Sure, I've mined her work for various things, but I stand on her shoulders and take her work to the next level. But you HAVEN'T READ IT so you don't know, and all you can do is keep muttering your hypnotic suggestion.
Yes, Mr. Daniel Coble, Mr. Donnelly has had some comments here. Mostly of the variety "I don't need to crack no stinking book to be able to judge it by its cover and be done with it." Blocking you is another flag that Mr. Donnelly isn't sincere and can't handle debate.
//
x221 Paul Donnelly : mini nukes debunk themselves
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
The mini nukes debunk themselves.
The 16 people in stairwell B? ..no fatalities due to radioactive 'burning' Gee must have been related to Hugh Jackman..
What's the odds..
Pasquale Buzzalli as well...
Then theres the extremely rapid rusting of WTC steel,
Iodine concentration lower in the upper layers, radioactive hot spots due to Radium, lioy reporting that Uranium , thorium and
Actinium and other radionuclide at background levels
x222 Maxwell C. Bridges : Do you know what DEW stands for?
2019-05-23
God-Damn, Mr. Paul Donnelly. You should STFU right now before you embarrass yourself even more and thoroughly trash your reputation and any belief lurker-readers might have that you aren't an agent with your obvious agenda toting from that really strong debate position of not knowing your opponent's work, SO YOU MAKE THINGS UP.
FWIW, FGNW are in the category of DEW. Do you know what DEW stands for? Let me give you a hint. The first two words are "directed" and "energy". If DEW isn't aimed at the survivors in the stairwell (because maybe they didn't have a device lower or maybe the device failed leading to the nuclear fizzle that we observe as smoldering piles for months), then what you write is a non-issue. The FGNW were aimed upwards but detonated top-down, and the survivors in the stairwell weren't targeted.
I've addressed the radiation issues and much more in my work. Ho-hum. Go read it. Don't comment here until you do.
Geesh, Agent Paul Donnelly, you are fumbling. Our government dollars at work. Guess they've lowered their standards to have accepted you.
How much do you get per posting? Not asking for myself, but for a friend who wants something productive to do during retirement. At least when I debunk the shit, I study what substantiates it and its flaws which ultimately is meant to help you. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" Don't answer that. We already know, Agent Paul Donnelly. You do a Trump and double down on the bullshit and lies. Congratulations!
//
x223 Paul Donnelly : Aimed upwards but detonated top-down
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
Aimed upwards but detonated top-down?
Riiiight
????????????
It's not just me is it?
I didn't realise embarrassing myself could be such FUN ???
x224 Maxwell C. Bridges : It is just you
2019-05-23
Yes. "Aimed upwards but detonated top-down."
For the sake of discussion, imagine 6-12 devices per tower mounted on either side of the steel structure that later became know as the "spire". The top-most device goes off first and gets the upper block to fall at 65% of gravitational acceleration, suddenly and symmetrically and at one point arresting the block's angular momentum.
Before the debris wave passes the level of the just detonated device, the next lower device in the towers goes off. Repeat top-down until all devices are detonated and tower is dustified on the ground. Top-down.
But each device is aimed or targeted upwards. Helps limit what gets zapped with each detonation. More importantly, FGNW aimed upwards won't fracticide FGNW mounted lower in the tower and could be fizzled by neutron emissions from the first detonated device unless those emissions can be aimed (DEW-like) in a different direction. I don't know, like, maybe, aimed up?!!
It is just you.
You really should do some more research before you open your mouth again. Even better, go to my blog and debunk my premise section by section. That's what the Dr. David Griffin model of debunking false theories calls for. Don't be such a weasel.
I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this FGNW hobby-horse. Set me straight and bring me back into the fold of 9/11 concensus sheep, but do it in a legitimate manner. Emoticons and memes? Not legitimate.
Chop, chop! It is only your reputation and integrity that are on the line.
//
x225 Paul Donnelly : get a theory to fit the facts
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
It is just me? I'm not the one trying myself up in verbal knots to get a theory to fit the facts.
You should try it the other way round. Maybe you could use your profound knowledge to make millions in the field of controlled demolition with your teeny tiny nukes?
Could you cut me in on a percentage? ??????
I'm so glad are spending quality time like this..
x226 Maxwell C. Bridges : a perfect example of what an agent on the internet looks like
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, you have hit the nail on the head with your most astute assertion: it is just you.
You are indeed tying yourself up in verbal knots to get theory to fit the facts... about NT. And you would have a better go of it if you'd read the three sections or so where I slaughter that sacred cow of limited hang-out that NT is. But because you haven't read it, and seem to pride yourself on this *cough* *hack* *choke* *choke* most useful of all debate tactics (e.g., be ignorant of what your opponent's true position is by not studying it), you have missed the many pieces of evidence that NT doesn't explain.
If you want to emulate Dr. David Ray Griffin, you have to address all of the evidence. Arches, sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies; duration of under-rubble hot-spots; tritium, tritium, tritium; camera scintillation...
I've debunked NT already. I've made the case for FGNW already. I don't need to make it here again.
Your job -- as an alleged 9/11 Truther -- is to follow truth where ever it may lead. My FGNW is full of truth, or so I say. If you want to disagree, it is a simple task for you to identify all of the nuggets of disinformation and nuggets of truth. Take it apart, section-by-section. Go to town. Do a thorough job. My blog allows commentary, although the comment size is smaller than FB.
But don't come here and expect hypnotic statements to impress the latter-day lurker readers, or for your integrity to remain in high esteem in their estimation.
If you are foolish enough to continue your present course of being a weasel, latter-day lurker readers will have a perfect example of what an agent on the internet looks like, and will be all *clap* *clap* *clap* "Bravo, old chap! Way to out yourself and prove the depths of infiltration!"
Looking forward to your comment on my blog, either article... Although read those comments first to make sure you don't re-hash what was already discussed.
No need to continue the discussion here. You are at a disadvantage and losing.
//
x227 Sam Lock, Paul Donnelly : not the sharpest tool in the box
2019-05-23
Sam Lock
Maxwell Bridges boldly said "I'll give Mr. Sam Lock a hint: the other elements that are produced when a nuke goes off depends on its composition (Duh!)" --- So what -->other<-- radio-logical elements were found in the dust. Besides all of that unused thermite (not a radio-logical element).
Paul Donnelly
Sam Lock well said.
I fear you are debating with not the sharpest tool in the box.
x228 Maxwell C. Bridges : assigning me busy work that you probably won't read
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, I'll give you another hint. The location in my comment where you retrieved that lovely quote from me? Start there and keep reading. I answer your original question, and the question you just posted. Geesh.
And with that, I brush off your attempt at assigning me busy work that you probably won't read. I proved you didn't read the comment, and you probably also haven't been to my blog where my two postings go into great details about the collection of nuclear evidence.
Ho-hum.
I did my homework, and I saved my work, and I am making it available to you. Go to any of my comments above with a link, follow the link, become enlightened.
Legitimately debunk it (or validate it).
//
x229 Paul Donnelly : read the blog
2019-05-23
Sam Lock but have you read the blog? ..????
x230 Maxwell C. Bridges : a manly-man's man threesome! Woo-hoo, baby. I can't wait!
2019-05-23
Looks like Mr. Paul Donnelly is trying to assign reading my blog to Mr. Sam Lock. Funny how they are tripping over themselves and racing to the bottom of who isn't going to read it, and proving their lack of reading comprehension skills in each and every comment!
My advice? You're tag teaming me here; tag team me under the discussion to one of my FGNW blog articles LINK WITHIN THIS THREAD. Working together (and with me), we can discover what is wrong in my premise, as well as nuggets of truth that remain valid and must be addressed by all 9/11 theories-du-jour.
Section by section.
Find the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Warning: I've got my blog on moderation and am not checking emails too frequently that would normally ping me of a new comment for approval. I'll change that habit and be more on top of email if you start posting comments there, but give me a head's up initially that you're finally doing me the favor of downing my last remaining 9/11 hobby-horse (Neu Nookiedoo).
Something like a FB message: "Hey Bridge-man, I've just posted a comment on your lame-ass blog that wipes my ass onto your section X, and my thorough comment addresses with substantiation all of the points in that section. I'll be addressing section X+1 tomorrow. Stay tuned, mo-fo!"
And then I'll go there, review your comment, approve your comment, and then my multi-part response will put your feces onto a piece of toilet paper for you to sniff and prove where your substantiation is in error, and hence making your premise in error.
Such great fun we all are to have: a manly-man's man threesome! Woo-hoo, baby. I can't wait!
//
x231 Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock : tag teaming
2019-05-23
Paul Donnelly
Maxwell Bridges
Have you missed me? ??
Sam Lock
Maxwell Bridges "the NIST videos that were sat on for half a decade or more and that actually allow you to see radiation being emitted from the pile." --- Where?
Paul Donnelly
Sam Lock
Are we tag teaming ?
Didn't realise this was a WWF thread...
x232 Maxwell C. Bridges : hitting the softball question
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, thank you for that wonderful opening that allows me to paste in a quote from my article.
+++ quote {edited}
A startling discovering from Mr. Heinz Pommer's work (http://www.911history.de) was real-time evidence of radiation in the immediate after-effects of the towers' destruction. This evidence is in the form of camera scintillation (flashes or sparkles of light) as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud. [-snip-]
Here is another example of camera scintillation, 9/11 - World Trade Center Recovery and debris removal part 4 of 6. At around 6:00 as the camera pans up and down, whenever it aims down, more scintillation appears in the lower half of the image that depicts the pulverized debris pile. Other instances in the video (such as around 12:00), the camera will have relatively few glitches, but as it pans over areas of the destruction, the lower portion of the image with the debris pile (and not the upper portion with standing structures) begin to have more white flashes or camera anomalies. When the camera pans over other areas of equipment and workers, not such scintillation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xScpRFVVx4w&feature=youtu.be
+++ end quote
It comes from Secton 9: titled "Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras". [Off topic is how you could have missed this section. Guilty of not RTFM? Man, that is just plain ugly in how it paints your objectivity in being able to (not) read your debate opponent's premises and know exactly WHAT has to be debunked.]
And as for Mr. Paul Donnelly and his outing of the coordination between those who promote an agenda about stifling any whiff whatsoever that 9/11 had nuclear components. Thank you. And you both suck at it.
Come on, gentlemen. If we assume that you -- Mr. Paul Donnelly and Mr. Sam Lock -- are real 9/11 truthers who follow truth where ever it leads, then god-damn if Dr. David Griffin ain't a patron saint where he demonstrates how to "debunk-the-debunkers". Namely, "section by section". If you have to, "paragraph by paragraph". In doing so, you can rescue nuggets of truth while simultaneously skewering the disinformation nuggets.
Your work is cut out for you, and fuck if I care if you WWF-thread tag-team it... In the comments under my relevant blog posting, where it absolutely has to be debunked (or validated)!
Please excuse me for hitting the softball question right. on. out. of. the. park.
//
x233 Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock : ugly is how it paints your objectivity
2019-05-23
Paul Donnelly
I think it's from his blog.
You can go and have a look if you like.
Sam Lock
Maxwell Bridges boldly said "Man, that is just plain ugly in how it paints your objectivity" --- You have avoided my direct question of what other radiological elements were found in the debris. Right back at yuh. Camera anomalies does not answer that question.
x234 Maxwell C. Bridges : Crickets
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, I posted my reference material first and been encouraging people to not only read it but to battle me there. You are avoiding the direct RTFM. Has nothing to do with me avoiding questions.
Thank you for the excellent opportunity to have you start reading in section 9. "Efforts to Debunk 9/11 Nuclear Devices"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
I suspect that section and those following already expose the weaknesses of "all" reports that you might be tempted to throw into this debate about "other radiological elements found in the debris." Talk about a skewed lot and scope-limited, and none of them can be trusted at face value as giving us the true state of fallout badness except the good news for war-mongers that the FGNW were indeed low-radiation nuclear, if they couldn't get the media to spew the lie that there was no radiation whatsoever, and pancaking gravity did the deed.
The reality of this discussion, Mr. Sam Lock and Mr. Paul Donnelly, is that **I** staked my position long ago and am already several steps ahead of you. I did my homework, but am eager to have you younglings school me where I got it wrong. But owing to your wet-behind-the-ears mentality, you keep posting questions that would have been long answered, if you would have RTFM. Moreover, you could be quoting from my two articles and tearing them apart where it got it wrong.
//
Crickets from Mr. Sam Lock and Mr. Paul Donnelly. On purpose, because they want this FB thread to naturally bury itself.
Which is why the debate forum can be in the discussion under my blog posts.
Remember, fellas. Emulate our 9/11 Patron Saint of Dr. David Griffin. Debunk them section-by-section (or smaller chunks). And rescue those nuggets of truth and properly evaluate their influence on your theories.
//
Chapter 9: FGNW Discussions with Marcel Lugtenborg, Paul Wenc, Sheila Baber, Michael W. Lurie, Rik Scholten, Jeff Rusin
A real person who was a sincere seeker of Truth would be able to say:
"Those anomalies are some real fucked up shit, and I don't know how NT would have been positioned to explain them." They'd say: "Mr. Bridges re-arrangement of the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks into his FGNW does surprisingly have fewer gaps while addressing a wider swath of evidence, and my cognitive dissonance gives me headaches trying to grasp it."
Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside of their scope or of expounding in depth on premises within their scope.
In Dutch, "Lugten" means "to smell". So, "smelling like Borg" is an interesting construct.
NT isn't defended well.
Projecting your weaknesses onto your opponent, so the trolling goes. But no viewing of the NIST FOIA video of the WTC steel scrap yards and providing commentary about how their favored mechanism of destruction would be positioned to achieve such evidence.
x236 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority
2019-08-01
Anonymous said...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/48028443651/in/album-72157708997281912/
The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel.
The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble
concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up
July 21, 2019 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...
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. The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion. The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority and you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact. The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6 But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack.
MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site? Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid? The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots. The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation. They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well. A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW. You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately. BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction.
you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are.
July 21, 2019 at 9:54 PM
++++++
Dear Mr. Anonymous from July 21, 2019, I apologize for tardiness in noticing your comment and approving it.
You have a tendancy to accept the least reputation-damaging of the set of plausible explanations and are beholden to sophomoric "exclusive-OR" arguments that leaves no room for "all of the above".
Example 1, you wrote: "The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel." I'm an objective and fair fellow, and will readily agree that on some days in some photos, the smoke was worsened by welder's torches. But given that they weren't welding under certain debris piles in various tower footprints that smoldered for weeks, your explanation falls short.
You wrote: "The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up..."
Again being an objective and fair fellow, I will readily agree that the carcinogens you describe may have constituted the majority factor in first-responder illnesses. But such does not rule out radiation from low-radiation fourth generation nukes.
The discussion was about tritium that was found in quantities 55 times greater than it should in the run-off from WTC-6. Tritium is a common feature of nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices and is used in a fusion reaction. These however required a fission trigger, which is what the heavy metals and their decay elements in correlated quanties from the USGS proves.
You wrote: "Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority..."
You are correct that WTC-6 was the customs house. It had vaults in the basements for confiscated weapons, money, and drugs. A FEMA photographer testifies that vaults were empty when they got to them, meaning prior to 9/11 and with foreknowledge. Funny thing is, the song and dance report about tritium suggested that aircraft exit signs and the gun sights on weapons cache attributed to the tritium measurement. Can't do that if the WTC-6 vaults were empty.
// Part 1/4
Part 2/4
You wrote: "you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact."
Au contraire. I've already explained it was fission-triggered-fusion with evidence of fission (Uranium and decay elements, Prager's work) and fusion (tritium) leaking out of all reports. AND the NIST night filming of the pile actively shows radiation to the discerning eye.
Your reference to intact basements of WTC-6 and WTC-7 does not rule out FGNW which fall into the category of DEW. They worked as designed, directing their energy where aimed, and decimated what they were aimed at (ceiling / floors above mounting point).
You would know this if you had read the article (blog posting) under which you made your comment. For shame.
You wrote: "The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6..."
You have a vivid imagination that is unsupported by anything. Where does the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST talk about WTC-6?
// Part 2/4
Part 3/4
You wrote: "But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack."
I lack for nothing in physical evidence of FGNW. The energy sink represented by the pulverization of content is the most glaring. I also have the significant percentages of tiny iron spheres found in the dust, as well as Uranium and its decay elements. I have tritium. I have NIST videos. I have horseshoes, arches/ sags, and steel doobies. [If you're a 9/11 Truther and in the NT camp, what demolition configuration of NT would generate them?]
You wrote: "MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site?"
Don't be giving me your busy work. If you know the answer, state it and cite your sources. As further proof of my fair nature, I will let you know from my research that no report every provided before and after inventories; I look forward to your research that finds what I lack. Meanwhile, let us not forget that FEMA photographer has stated that the vaults were empty when they got there.
You wrote: "Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid?"
No. But you can prove me wrong.
You wrote: "The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots."
You make me laugh out loud. Why didn't the report on the WTC-6 tritium run-off measurments mention these seawater pumps? Instead, why did they go with the ludicrous aircraft exit signs and weapons sights?
You wrote: "The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation."
Such hypnotic suggestion you utter. What part of the description of FGNW in the category of DEW would not be applicable to the description of the destruction.
You wrote: "They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well."
The jet fuel burned up in the fire ball and within the first 10 minutes, according to NIST. The detonation point of FGNW would cause secondary fires locally, although most of the energy was released upwards and into the structure.
// Part 3/4
Part 4/4
You wrote: "A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy."
Good thing I'm not in Wood's camp.
You wrote: "... and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff."
Since when does rainwater have concentrations of tritium above the background levels? Who doesn't understand background levels.
You wrote: "https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from..."
I already did, and completely gutted that report in the predecessor to the above blog article.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
You wrote: "Also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW."
Why don't you take your own advice?
I did my research. And I know that "Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW" aren't allowed to talk about it, and have stiff treason penalties for violations thereof.
But you didn't read my work(s), so aren't in a position to invalidate my sources, which are reputable.
You wrote: "You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately."
Such wonderful hypnotic suggestion more fitting of your own personal weaknesses that you are trying to project and pawn off onto me: classic disinformation technique.
You wrote: "BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction."
What vehicles are you referring to? Are you talking about those near WTC-7 before it came down? Those in the car park catti-corner from the towers?
You wrote: "you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are."
Thank you for that glowing recommendation and vote of confidence in my work.
But given the glaring deficiencies in your reading abilities, your research, and your reasoning already exposed in my rebuttal, I will not be following your advice.
// Part 3/4
x237 Maxwell C. Bridges : missing bodies
2019-09-12
To Paul Wenc's posting of The MISSING BODIES: Why half of September 11 victims in Twin Towers were never found, I replied:
2019-09-12
Fourth generation nuclear devices will do that to materials in the way of DEW cone of highly energetic neutrons. //
x238 Marcel Lugtenborg, Paul Wenc : scientific (peer review?) evidence for that
2019-09-12
Marcel Lugtenborg
Please name me the scientific (peer review?) evidence for that.. Thanks. I still believe it was nanothermite (Bentham Open Chemical and Physics Journal) https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/exhibit-01-petition-1/
Exhibit 01 -- Petition 1 | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9-11INQUIRY.ORG
Exhibit 01 -- Petition 1 | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
Exhibit 01 -- Petition 1 | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
Paul Wenc
Marcel Lugtenborg Yes, physical evidence of Nano thermite !
x239 Maxwell C. Bridges : how the public myth was implanted in our thoughts
2019-09-12
Dear Mr. Paul Wenc, I hate to be the bearer of bad news that even 9/11 Truthers suffer from cognitive dissonance. Your statement "physical evidence of nano-thermite" is exhibit A in how the public myth was implanted in our thoughts.
Correcting the record, nobody found evidence of NT: not the RJ Lee Group, not the USGS, not Paul Lioy et all. Only allegedly the dust samples with chain-of-custody issues given to Dr. Jones.
If you read closely, what you'll learn is that they discovered tiny iron spheres in the dust. They did not speculate very well into all of the different mechanisms that could create this artifact. Dr. Jones went right to saying it was a result of the NT chemical reaction with steel.
Oh, but this was immediately after Dr. Jones poo-pooed all manner and forms of nuclear mechanisms by framing them improperly, not mentioning neutron devices, and not researching fourth generation nuclear devices (fission-triggered-fusion.) The USGS did not find NT in the dust; instead they found the finger-prints of fission with uranium and all of its decay elements in CORRELATED QUANTITIES sample-to-sample; they list this in their tables, but don't discuss. And let's not forget the tritium report and its song and dance; Dr. Jones is guilty of not questioning what he was fed and having no imagination that things besides aircraft exit signs and gun sights would leave tritium traces. For those researching things nuclear in the last quarter century, tritium is a key factor in all fourth generation nuclear devices.
I have an updated version of this on my blog if you menu around, but this version is useful for how it slaughters the NT sacred cow.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x240 Paul Wenc, Marcel Lugtenborg : no NT and AE911TRUTH is wrong
2019-09-12
Paul Wenc
Maxwell Bridges
So, are you saying no NT and AE911TRUTH is wrong ?
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Zionist Troll, look at the facts
Marcel Lugtenborg
Listen to Barbara
https://youtu.be/VXBk8JqwFlw?t=7514
Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
YOUTUBE.COM
Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
x241 Maxwell C. Bridges : NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction
2019-09-12
Good point, Mr. Paul Wenc. I don't discount that NT may have been involved; they had backup plans for the backup plans in this thoroughly redundant and overkill operation -- one of its biggest tells.
I'm saying that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. (Too many things it cannot account for, like the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, like arches / sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies, like pulverized concrete.)
By extension, I am saying that AE911Truth is wrong on NT. Their treatment of Dr. Wood is case in point. Dr. Wood has disinformation, but tons of nuggets of truth that only stack up with FGNW. AE911 did not review her material chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section, image-by-image. They waved their hands. (In my search for truth, I've debunked Dr. Wood's work, because she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws not conclusions, and did shitty research into nuclear anything.)
AE9/11 didn't do what I did; they didn't wade in at all. (Their one piece I'm aware of spends half of its word count promoting NT.) This is a tell.
And Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, please retract your "zionist troll" comment. Has nothing to do with me.
You encourage me to look at the facts. Indeed, and this is what I encourage you to do as well with an open-mind, as I have done.
NT doesn't go the distance in explaining the anomalies of the day. FGNW does.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
x242 Maxwell C. Bridges : published in a reputable science journal
2019-09-12
Here's a clue. Dr. Jones wrote his paper about hard evidence allegedly reputiating nuclear devices in 2007.
This peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal was published in 2005.
Disinfo Dr. Judy Wood and disinfo Dr. Steven Jones both missed Dr. Andre Gsponer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
There are many reasons why the government would want to hide the fact that nuclear devices were used, even if hard evidence proves that they were low radiation (comparatively to what media has been hyping for decades.)
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
x243 Paul Wenc : Exactly what are your Qualifications
2019-09-12
Maxwell Bridges
What you present is interesting ... Exactly what are your Qualifications ?
x244 Maxwell C. Bridges : Open-mind and persistence, mostly.
2019-09-12
Open-mind and persistence, mostly. Took physics derived from calculus in college last century among many other technical classes. Enough math and science chops to research and read in the technical stacks of engineering libraries, and get the gist. And just as importantly, to find the issues and holes. Like in Dr. Jones work.
Here's a good one. Dr. Jones essentially wrote: "Nuclear devices of type A, B, and C have radiation signature P, R, Q. Well, we found radiation signature S. [Logic error] Therefore, not only was it not nuclear devices of type A, B, and C, but it was not any nuclear devices at all."
Neutron bombs were my clue. Why didn't Dr. Jones discuss them as type D, as the evidence S would suggest? For that matter, why have they been so silent about neutron bombs since the 1980's when they used to be hyped as the ultimate weapon in our nuclear stockpiles?
The inventor of the neutron bomb once suggested that the neutrons could be aimed in a half-sphere (as opposed to full-sphere). From there, you go to cones in terms of directing energy, highly energetic neutrons.
At any rate, nuclear devices in (rational) 9/11 discussions is kind of like black holes in space. Even if you couldn't see them, their effect on neighboring systems proves they exist. 9/11 nuclear devices are avoided everywhere and aren't discussed by movers and shakers in 9/11 TM, despite evidence leaking out all over of nuclear means.
It is how they didn't discuss it, if that makes sense.
Dr. Wood was closest to the truth, but was disinfo because she purposely (maybe to save her live) drew no conclusions. She gathered together tons of evidence that 9/11 had nuclear aspects, and then let it get camped under kooky umbrellas with other dangling innuendo that can't be proved, can't be powered by real world means to the level required, etc. "The best way to stop the opposition is to lead it," Lenin or Marx, right?
//
x245 Sheila Baber, Sheila Baber, Michael W. Lurie, Andy Christensen, Paul Wenc : silly to argue engineering methodology
2019-09-12
Sheila Baber
Maxwell Bridges it’s silly to argue engineering methodology ... I reviewed the Bentham paper and it’s legitimate.
I’ve taken and supervised thousands of samples. Claiming COC issues is stupid.
Michael W. Lurie
The idea is to keep 'truthers' fighting with each other over the "facts" concerning 911. Have you noticed how well that has been working? Many are angry (or even hating!) with each other, simply for disagreeing about the methods used (or culprits) behind 9/11.
Divide and conquer. Still working... :-(
Andy Christensen
We may never understand the. Multiple forces that brought these buildings down.
We DO KNOW that it wasn't planes....
Paul Wenc
Andy Christensen Not Planes, Not ??, Not Jet Fuel !
Andy Christensen
Paul Wenc truth is like a big onion...many layers of details. Understanding your audience's aptitude for facts before presenting them. No sense in alienating them before one even gets started.
Geoffrey Ritchey
Nist, the official government source, says it was normal office fires that brought down building 7, and they have a computer model. They will not release those models on the grounds they would jeopardize public safety; that for a building that no longer even exists. Even architects who design new buildings cannot get those models that describe a "new phenomenon" in NISTS words. If those models show deliberate fraud, well then, the gig is up for the whole government. There is no sense in arguing exotic theories. No nukes are required for a controlled demolition.
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Compared to Bentham Open work from Dr. Steven E Jones and Prof Niels Harrit and others, your suggestions are at the Mickey Mouse level.
Michael W. Lurie
...please don't insult Mickey Mouse.
Sheila Baber
Geoffrey Ritchey “jeopardize public safety” ??
They should be in jail!
Erik K Patterson
nuke talk is idiotic
Erik K Patterson
nuke talk is disinfo
x246 Maxwell C. Bridges : Russian Agent Dimitri K.
2019-09-12
Dear Mr. Erik K Patterson, when the nuke talk is from the Russian Agent Dimitri K., when it focuses on deep underground nukes and/or single devices per tower, (or when it is Dr. Steven Jones in his poorly researched debunking), THEN I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE that nuke talk is disinformation, just like Woodsian DEW and NT.
However, I have been around the 9/11 block many times, and nukes are always what NOBODY discusses rationally, despite the glaring evidence of such leaking out of ALL REPORTS. I have done my homework, compiled my research, and created my hypothesis.
I would like someone to convince me otherwise. But nobody can or will. That is a sign. (Not even David Chandler or any of the leaders of AE911 TM will do so. And I have approached them directly.)
My reference links are already posted. If you want to debunk FGNW, by all means, do so. I am eager to be duped another way and convinced of my errors. But to do so, you'll have to wade in section-by-section and be factual.
Hypnotic suggestion, as your comments have been, won't cut it.
//
x247 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bentham paper has major issues
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, you wrote: "I reviewed the Bentham paper and it’s legitimate."
I have reviewed it, too. It has major issues, like its immediate extrapolation that "tiny iron spheres" could only be created by the chemical reaction of NT with steel. Limiting the scope is a classic disinformation technique that is a hallmark for 9/11. (They did the same thing for the Tritium report, which was then re-used without question or qualification by Dr. Steven Jones as the final word on tritium levels, when its scope-limited actually prevented it from being treated as such from the onset.)
I don't discount that NT might have been involved, but even the NT reports do not explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. At best, it tries to explain 6 spikes in the gas released.
Thing is, Dr. Cahill was measuring downwind air quality (starting in October, already late). The metals he discovered in the samples indicated a very hot heat source THAT CONTINUALLY REGENERATED THE PARTICLES. Problem with NT, once the chemical reaction has stopped, it can't maintain the hot-spots and it cools.
Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al have be negligent in the math. It is one thing to calculate (poorly) the amounts of NT required for pulverization. But these disinfo agents want us to believe that obscenely massive overkill amounts of NT above and beyond what was needed for pulverization were placed in the towers to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The 9/11 TM (including you) has been duped into believing that NT can go the distance while ignoring the phrase that pays "obscenely massive overkill amounts of NT above and beyond what was needed for pulverization."
You wrote: "I’ve taken and supervised thousands of samples. Claiming COC issues is stupid."
If you are such a sampling expert, then how about you review my analysis of the three reports that make up the pillars of NT.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
Surprise, surprise, you'll discover that samples (how many/few, when, and where) were major issues that call the conclusions of all those reports into question.
The one report on the dust that was somewhat comprehensive was the USGS dust analysis. Plain text, it didn't say much, but the tables spoke volumes. In particularly, they document Uranium and its decay trace elements IN CORRELATED QUANTITIES sample-to-sample (evidence of fission as in "fission-triggered-fusion"), while at the same time NOT documenting NT or other explosives.
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x248 Maxwell C. Bridges : scientists were strong-armed into lying
2019-09-12
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you wrote "Compared to Bentham Open work from Dr. Steven E Jones and Prof Niels Harrit and others, your suggestions are at the Mickey Mouse level."
See my last comment regarding the disinformation that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit and AE911Truth were pawning. Nuclear physicists Dr. Jones -- when he first "debunked" nukes -- did not even mention neutron devices or any Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices which use tritium. He framed nukes inappropriately. He accepted unchallenged and unquestioned the lame sampling and reports on tritium.
As has already been proven by the reports of many government agencies, scientists were strong-armed into lying. EPA? Lied about air quality. NIST? Averaged together demolition phases including one "indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration" in order to say with a straight face that the three phases were slower than free-fall (e.g., WTC-7 report, that was slow-walked and delayed). WTC-7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, which is the mother of all public myth creating documents.
Point is, just because Jones & Harrit got published by Bentham, doesn't mean squat.
Dr. Andre Gsponer had been writing about FGNW for a decade or more before Dr. Jones' 2007 "nuke reputiation" disinfo piece just prior to NT. When cornered, though, Jones said that NT didn't have the brisance to affect pulverization, so was mixed with other explosives. Too bad, none were measured not even by Jones on his samples even brought to his attention. Later, Dr. Jones admitted that "something maintained the hot spots, not just NT." Yet, did he or anyone else (besides me) ever look into it.
NT is a limited-hang-out. I don't argue that it wasn't involved. I argue that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. FGNW were.
//
x249 Marcel Lugtenborg, Sheila Baber : Nobody challenged the evidence presented peer review by Dr Jones and other scientists
2019-09-12
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Nobody challenged the evidence presented peer review by Dr Jones and other scientists. The nuke has been debunked by scientists. I admit that not everything is solved and there still are some questions. But thermitic reactions were scientificly proven. And nanothermite is found and published and not challenged. (Bentham) You don't mean squat.
Sheila Baber
Maxwell Bridges ...
You’re not discounting that NT might have been involved.
We agree. Fighting others seeking justice for OBVIOUSLY ENGINEERED DEMOLITION is a highly suspect activity, IMO.
It’s (intentionally?) disruptive.
x250 Maxwell C. Bridges : You made the claim that scientists have debunked nukes; you defend it.
2019-09-12
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you made the startling claim that "the nuke has been debunked by scientists," so I must hold your feet to the fire and have you prove it. You made the statement, now you defend it. (And if you refuse or rely on hypnotic suggestion, the cut of your jibe will be known, and I will make hay with this exposed character deficiency.)
But because I am a fair and generous fellow, I will inform you up front (as if I haven't already with the links to my blog) that if your defense rests on Dr. Jones' troublesome and logic-impaired "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that mini-nukes were used at the WTC towers", I have already debunked it in section 12 of the "Beyond Misinformation" article linked in my last comment. Thus, if that is your intention and your defense, I am a step ahead of you (having debunked your foundation already), so your defense and furtherance of this discussion will need to address my efforts... section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph if needed. Be thorough, my good man.
Please, do a good job. I'm a duped useful idiot and do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this front. I'm easy to dupe one way or another. All it takes is a proper understanding of science & the evidence, and rational science-based arguments that explains in a logical manner where I got it wrong.
And because I'm a fair and generous fellow, not only do I give you in advance MY POSITION so you can know exactly what you need to address, but I also will gladly let your fact-filled science-based counter-arguments convince me of something else, and which point I will offer up a public apology and henceforth stop promoting this FGNW premise. (I was duped by NPT @ WTC, until exactly those things happened that convinced me of the errors of my ways and consequently a public apology.)
Chop, chop! You made the claim that scientists have debunked nukes; you defend it.
//
x251 Maxwell C. Bridges : arguing for controlled demolition
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, on the one hand you are correct that we are all arguing for controlled demolition or engineered demolition. On the other hand, you imply that any speculation beyond controlled demolition (e.g., arguing with those in the 9/11 TM who suffer from cognitive dissonance with regards to NT) is suspect and "It’s (intentionally?) disruptive."
Well I believe that any effort that doesn't follow Truth all the way down the rabbit-hole to its true end-station is disinformation and has already laid an intentionally disruptive foundation. This is what I'm trying to correct (or have you convince me otherwise so I can correct my position.)
Using an analogy. Let's assume that someone was killed with a knife in the kitchen. Those who want to stop at "controlled demolition" are essentially saying that it didn't matter how the person died except by knife; they leave the door open for the framing to be "a battered and beaten wife who grabbed the knife and killed in self-defense." But what if the truth is that the wife forged the knife in a garage kiln, honed it for weeks to an exact sharpness, and when the bully was killed, it wasn't a single knife wound to the belly, but a sewing-machine-like stabbing all over the victim's body.
Obviously, the two instances of a kitchen death are not equivalent. The thoroughness of the operation (e.g., manner of death) needs to be factored in.
My point is that the copious amount of evidence of nuclear involvement on 9/11 takes the situation beyond "controlled demolition" (that could be pawned off on any foreign patsy) to being an act that only a select number of suspects (e.g., US and Israel) have the ability to pull off. And once 75 years of media hype into nukes gets out of the bag on this front, all manner of hysteria will result. The figurative 9/11 nuclear fall-out on elected representatives and institutions & agencies will still be figuratively deadly to those in power (and Israel) today.
What you all are doing with your hypnotic suggestion (that provides no indication that any effort was made into reading & comprehending my FGNW premise) is simply providing cover for those who did it, stopping understanding in false end-stations, and are settling for a lesser and less-damaging truth.
Whereas I am open to have my premise debunked so that I can change my tune, because I am religiously fanatical about truth, can you say the same thing? Can you look at the weaknesses in the NT premise (given in my article) and see where NT comes up short? Assuming your objectivity in see the weaknesses of NT, are you capable of changing your opinion and acknowledging where 9/11 TM was infiltrated and seeded with disinformation?
This is your objectivity test. Will you pass, or will you fail?
Because I am a fair and generous person, if you explore further my blog, you'll see where much of its content in later years came from re-purposed exchanges with those -- some possibly better than you -- who failed (sometimes spectacularly) in defending NT and attacking FGNW... Learn from their mistakes. A primary failure (that so far all in this forum also exhibit) is an an willingness to dive into my premise (or its substantion) and legitimately debunk it section-by-section. No, they don't go there, and get fouled out on a technicality rather than on the merits of thorough debunking. Don't be like them.
//
x252 Sheila Baber : NT is also highly specialized
2019-09-12
Maxwell Bridges NT is also highly specialized, as is Amerithrax.
I have no interest in debating the “who” and do believe that gets in the way of the obvious “what” (destruction was engineered ... NOT due to 2 planes violating the laws of physics by pulverizing 3 NYC towers).
x253 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bentham no longer allows commentary
2019-09-12
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, sorry for this continuation, but I need to address a couple of things you wrote.
(1) "Nobody challenged the evidence presented peer review by Dr Jones and other scientists."
I challenged it. It is in my blog article linked above, sections 2-6. I would have posted on Bantham, but they no longer allow commentary. I was banned from 9/11 Blogger before I could even get in, because nukes were something they wouldn't address.
(2) "But thermitic reactions were scientificly proven."
Meh. Not really. Look closely, and their efforts amount to speculating that the NT chemical reaction is the cause/source of the tiny iron spheres measured everywhere in the dust. Scope-limited from the onset. Without such scope-limits and with rational consideration of FGNW as viable from the evidence (of Uranium and its decay elements, of tritium, of the energy sink of pulverization, of the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, of camera defects that expose radiation leaking off of the pile), then you should recognize HOW AE9/11 TRUTH was duped.
(3) "And nanothermite is found and published and not challenged. (Bentham) "
I also provided peer-reviewed sources, published in reputable science journals, and not challenged. Look for Dr. Gsponer in my article for links, but it is also exposed in this FB thread if you look there.
Worse than not challenged, Dr. Jones didn't include any of it in his literature review on nukes... a fucking major oversight / omission.
To sum up, your whole comment is all bun and no meat, all hypnotic suggestion and no research, all cognitive dissonance concensus "let others think for me" and no objectivity to the fact that 9/11 is from start-to-finish in all aspects disinformation. (And if my shit is in error, point it out and I'll sing a different tune with a public apology, too.)
//
x254 Maxwell C. Bridges : when the truth leaks out?
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, I agree that NT is highly specialized, supposedly. However, the good Dr. Jones who allegedly discovered energetic flakes (only in his dust samples) -- when cornered -- admitted that NT did not have the brisance for pulverization so was mixed with something else that he failed to measure the existence of in his dust samples, even when brought to his attention.
And further, Dr. Jones speculation into NT ultimately only has it allegedly accounting for 6 spikes in the gas output of the smoldering rubble pile. When cornered, Dr. Jones admitted that "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT."
If you aren't going to listen to your PhD patron saints of 9/11, then how are you going to recognize when the truth leaks out?
FGNW is also highly specialized, with 60+ years of research and development BEFORE 9/11 came about.
And as for not asking about the "who", you are simply covering the asses of the perpetrators. And if "who" questions aren't asked, we find ourselves under the yoke of practically the same "who" (or ilk of "who"): namely bankers, MIL, and Israel.
Israel is the biggest beneficiary of 9/11. As Mr. Epstein proves, US leaders are blackmailed (willingly in many cases) into doing Israel bidding and fighting Israeli wars for Israel... and this trend line continues with the Iran war drums.
If you are not willing to follow Truth where ever it leads, then are you really a truther?
//
x255 Sheila Baber : disrupting the “what”
2019-09-12
Maxwell Bridges the “Who” comes during investigation of the “WHAT”.
We agree that 2 planes did not pulverize 3 NYC skyscrapers.
I’m a scientist, so the “what” comes before the “who”, and to accuse me of giving perpetrators a pass is preposterous.
Why are you so adamant in disrupting the “what”?
x256 Maxwell C. Bridges : so adamant about not researching
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, owing to the nature and abilities of FGNW (within the category of DEW which ultimately makes Dr. Wood's efforts closer to the Truth than Dr. Jones' NT efforts and nuke-debunking efforts), I believe they took down the three NYC skyscrapers plus half of WTC-4, gutted WTC-5, and put a crater in WTC-6.
If you are a scientist, then you'll have no problems looking through my premise and understanding how -- once the evidence is extracted from disinformation premises and set in a line -- FGNW should become the holy grail of 9/11 at the WTC.
You accuse me of being "so adamant in disrupting the “what”?"
Au contraire! I am a fanatical about Truth, so I am adamant that any premise which does not address adequately all of the evidence is at the least not the complete Truth, so we must continue our research.
This I have done. I did my homework. I wrote my thesis.
Why are you, as a scientist, so adamant about not researching my premise to find its errors and truths? It is you who are disrupting, as you stall and try to keep understanding at lesser truths (which equates to "error"). You are welcome to go to my blog and school me correctly (although let me know you've done so, because comments on my blog are on moderation to prevent spam; I promise to publish your responses once I know they are there.)
P.S. I made a relevant top-level comment to Paul Wenc's post and established the direction that this thread -- to be on-topic -- would go: FGNW. So technically, it is you who are disrupting discussions on the "what" by trying to park understanding in erroneous cul-de-sacs.
Here's something for you to study. (Posted again.) Although speculative in nature, it has been honed over more than a decade, was never disputed by nuclear scientists, and even has evidence via its evolution of having been improved with input from nuclear scientists.
Debunk it as a starting point, please. Peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
And to be clear, to my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11 or how FGNW relates. But then again, disinfo agents Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood didn't write a single word about any of the late-3rd-generation or early-4th generation nuclear devices that were being developed and discussed in the late 1990's.
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
x257 Sheila Baber : Jones et al are not “disinformation agents”
2019-09-12
Maxwell Bridges Jones et al are not “disinformation agents”.
You, YOURSELF, said YOU have not ruled out NT, AND you said that Jones did not rule out your technological research.
Why do you wish to argue?
x258 Maxwell C. Bridges : can't even do basic research
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, I know this is hard for 9/11 Truthers to swallow. But when I compile all of the evidence of nuclear hijinx that was glaring and available to Dr. Jones together with the glaring weaknesses of NT, the obvious conclusion is "controlled opposition". They went "thus far and no further" and stopped before legitimately and thoroughly explaining how NT went the distance and/or debunking comprehensively FGNW.
It is no skin off my nose if NT were involved. But I am not being the fool and saying "NT was the primary (and only) cause of controlled demolition" as you are doing. I am not trying to park Truth into false NT cul-de-sacs as you are doing. I am not being blind to the deficiencies (and omissions) on Dr. Jones work as you are being. Way to go in showing how objective you really are not.
And were you not so obstinate, you'd HEAR and UNDERSTAND the meaning of Dr. Jones words "something maintained the hotspots, not just NT."
The question is not "why (I) wish to argue"? Hell, this is my thread.
The questions truly are why you wish to argue? Why do spout off that you were a scientist, yet can't even do basic research into following my posted links, read the articles, and note where it and/or its references are in error? Hypnotic suggestion is all you got.
Your reputation is getting dinged. Prove that you are a truther. Please, debunk my FGNW legitimately like any real scientist worth her research-salt would be able to do. (If you look closely at the comments under my blog entries, you'll even find links to my RAW research into DEW and Nukes that could give you a huge leg up and several steps forward into grasping the true mechanisms of destruction. I'm fanatical about Truth. You? Yet to be seen.
//
x259 Sheila Baber : I NEVER said
2019-09-12
Maxwell Bridges I NEVER said NT “was the primary (and only) cause of controlled demolition”.
You repeated that Dr. Jones AGREED that “something maintained the hotspots, not just NT”.
SO, despite me (and Dr. Jones) agreeing with you ... you insist on lying about my previous statements and position, and falsely stating that I’m arguing with you.
Your commentary is dishonest, which makes me suspicious.
x260 Maxwell C. Bridges : acknowledging that something maintained the hotspots besides NT
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, I commend you on acknowledging that something maintained the hotspots besides NT. What does it tell you, Madam Scientist?
Logically, if NT isn't the end-station and we know it is not the end-station as being the primary means o…See More
x261 Sheila Baber : no legitimate criminal investigation
2019-09-12
Maxwell Bridges because the “how” and “who” requires a legitimate criminal investigation.
Speculation regarding the “who” will make the entire effort emotional and unscientific.
There has been no legitimate criminal investigation.
The only SURE THING, is that the official conspiracy theory is unscientific BS. ALL scientific evidence supports this conclusion. A legitimate CRIMINAL investigation is the demand of everyone seeking justice.
x262 Maxwell C. Bridges : been playing us and running out the clock.
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, on the surface your comment seems so very agreeable that I gave it a "like". But then I'm struck by the wording of "a legitimate criminal investigation". What factors and forces of nature would make this pipe-dream possible? I mean, you look at how screwed up various agencies were (EPA, NIST) in promoting lies; you look at the compromised 9/11 Commission, delayed, underfunded, and Zelikow controlled from the onset for the public myth.
How many years has it been since the original 9/11? They've been playing us and running out the clock.
All too often I (figuratively) hear people on the internet crying for "legitimate" this and that. Aside from the powers that be never letting this happen, it becomes a futile rallying cry for a lot of nothing. Just another stalling tactic.
What is needed -- and you are welcome to follow in my footsteps -- are simply a lot of independent "illegitimate investigations" that rescue nuggets of truth from the maws of disinformation and builds them into rational conclusions that the slow-walking and foot-dragging of "legitimate" won't start.
To be clear, the only difference between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" investigations are (1) who sanctioned them, funded them, steered them, and promoted them, and (2) the confidence that the results won't be a load of horseshit. And it isn't what you think.
Or to sum up with your own words, you wrote that the only sure thing is that the official conspiracy theory is unscientific BS, yet in a logic fail don't recognize that this is essentially "legitimate" and sanctioned through official channels.
"Illegitimate" can still be true, thorough, and valid.
Meanwhile, Madam Scientist, did you review Dr. Andre Gsponer's PDF about FGNW peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal in 2005, yet conveniently missed by Dr. Jones' 2007 "nuke reputiation" and "NT crammed into the void", and Dr. Wood's WDTTG? 2010 book.
You want legitimacy? Do your homework and come to your own conclusions, and have the courage of your own convictions to ask the right questions and persistence to get the answers.
I'll have no problem with you LEGITIMATELY debunking my FGNW premise, but it can't be done without first evaluating its foundation of truth nuggets mined from many sources.
I give you several huge steps forward by providing an outline & thesis of all that ~any~ theory-du-jour must address. Think of each section as a different target that you can aim at and shoot down. I'll give you my raw research into DEW / Nukes to save you time in the library catalogs and bookstacks [but as a solid foundation on which to do further research from.] I'll praise every error or mistake you find in my work and its sources, and will use the opportunity to re-assess my thesis and its conclusions. Convince me, or let me convince you. THIS would be legitimate.
Waiting for the wheels of government and justice to move on this, and assuming only that is legitimate, or assuming only those things where the author's have PhD's after their names are legitimate? Yeah, well, they gotta eat too and know which side their bread is buttered on.
//
x263 Sheila Baber : hold criminals accountable
2019-09-12
Maxwell Bridges since you have solved everything, when and how are you going to hold criminals accountable? What’s your next step?
x264 Maxwell C. Bridges : how so many bodies allegedly disappeared from the towers
2019-09-12
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, looks another distraction and delay of game on your part. This thread is supposed to be about how so many bodies allegedly disappeared from the towers, and I proposed a thesis that I researched and substantiated to the best of my ability: FGNW. And as bonus, my work exposes the deficiencies of the controlled 9/11 TM and its lame NT theories.
Your task has been to wade into it, read it, assess what is valid and what is not, and determine the merit of the work. And after bragging about being a scientist, you have yet to offer up any reasoned comments (or even quotations from the work you have issues with) that would indicate you read them. (FAIL.)
So while you moan "legitimate investigations", you seem incapable of launching your own "legitimate investigations" and vetting (or not) my premise.
For shame, for shame!
Once you have validated or not my premise through your own elbow-grease and scholarly scientific efforts, then the next steps of "when and how" criminals can be held accountable will be clear.
My wishful thinking? That the revelations of 9/11 @ WTC had nuclear components most likely directly from US stockpiles will lead to massive public outrage, House & Senate cleaning, and institution & agency restructuring. Hell, I'd even be supportive of us doing a "founding fathers" and overthrowing the present government and breaking the USA into independent regions who establish laws applicable to their geography. (Then the electoral college won't be as big an issue when it goes away in favor of ranked-voting, divestiture of money from politics, and transparent elections.)
Think of it as a peaceful transition from MIL bankers and Israel control of us to state's rights.
For certain, with Trump and McConnell, ain't shit gonna get done today. Alas as was proven with Obama, he was simply a more eloquent continuation of the same war mongering strategies.
So, if the nuclear truth can raise emotions for the public to demand change and death to the institutions and policies that enslave us, then great. But first, we need to know the extent and depravity of the crime.
//
x265 Sheila Baber, Olof Won Howler : achieve justice sitting at your keyboard
2019-09-12
Sheila Baber
Maxwell Bridges ... which demands legitimate investigation.
You’re not going to achieve justice sitting at your keyboard.
Olof Won Howler
Maxwell Bridges Sure, you have some detailed info about 4-G nukes? Hardly unless you have taken part in developing those. It's true that you might be right - that 4-nukes were used, but to stay focused in what's going on with getting investigation going, repeating that same at this point irrelevant matter sounds like trolling - not that I'd see you as one..
x266 Maxwell C. Bridges : Justice on 9/11 is your hobby-horse
2019-09-12
You guys completely misunderstand my Blues Brothers mission from God in feeding you sheeple Truth. Your investigations and trials, I fully support. Like FGNW has become my one-trick-pony hobby horse, getting some legal circus going can be yours.
Hold in your hip pocket this truth about FGNW. Then in your trials, use it as a litmus test for the rightness, fairness, and completeness of the games.... Did it really go far enough down the rabbit-hole? ... And I'm sure there a lot of Epstein connections in 9/11, as well, indicating a path of weakness exploited by Israel as but one tool in their deceptions arsenal to get the US military take out Israeli's enemies and turn a blind eye to its war crimes in Gaza.
Ms. Sheila Baber laments: "You’re not going to achieve justice sitting at your keyboard."
Justice on 9/11 is your hobby-horse. My hobby-horse was getting at Truth in the WTC demolitions and that nuclear means were used.
What a long strange trip it has been, but I achieved already the pinnacle of my 9/11 endeavors (from my keyboard), and this old man is burned out. I offer the fruits of my labor to others. I encourage others to distrust my work, because then they will vet it or applicable portions of it, or not. Truth is what I'm fanatical about, so inform me of errors.
Ultimately, the hope is that OTHERS will stand on my shoulders to take it to the next level.
Consider it my gift to you and your 9/11 endeavors. How so? What better way to inspire public distrust and lead to your justice cause than the public revelation that a Zionist faction in the leadership of the US government and Israel incinerated hundreds of innocent US citizens trapped in the WTC towers by detonating multiple fourth generation nuclear devices and comically tried to say that gravity alone did it. "9/11 VICTIMS INCINERATED BY US NUKES". Has a nice ring to it.
Meanwhile, my work on this thread is done, (and saved for later re-purposing on my blog.)
Thank you for your participation.
//
x267 Marcel Lugtenborg : Excellent job by David Chandler
2019-11-04
Marcel Lugtenborg
November 4 at 12:13 PM ·
Molten steel found at WTC... Nist (John Gross) said he did not know or never heard of.. Look at the video by David Chandler. Startready to subject.. Molten steel. . https://youtu.be/b3zz2o_8WKQ?t=6049
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3zz2o_8WKQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6049
Marcel Lugtenborg You can easily start the video at the beginning.. The whole video is very much worth watching. Excellent job by David Chandler
x268 Maxwell C. Bridges : Chandler didn't take it far enough
2019-11-05
Except that he didn't take it far enough. And to think he first got a degree in physics (which includes nuclear topics) and then got certified as a school teacher.
//
x269 Marcel Lugtenborg : Sick remark
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges Sick remark.. you should respect David for what he achieved for the truth movement..
x270 Maxwell C. Bridges : I respect Mr. Chandler and his videos
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I do respect Mr. Chandler and his videos. But that doesn't mean he is completely right.
In fact, the Pentagon truthers believe he has that wrong.
From a different direction, I believe he has the 9/11 WTC destruction wrong. NT is a limited-hang-out, and he & A&E911Truth know it. Sure, no skin off my nose to agree that NT ~might~ have been involved.
But NT was ~not~ the primary mechanism of destruction. Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (6-12 per tower, plus several for each WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6).
The evidence leaks out all over, but is constantly misinterpreted, even Mr. Chandler. I've exchanged email and FB correspondence with Mr. Chandler directly.
Back before I discovered the deceit in Dr. Wood's book, I had such a difficult time getting 9/11 Truth gate-keepers to legitimately review it for the good, the bad, and the ugly, that I would secure permission to send these leaders a copy, so that a legitimate discussion could be had.
Mr. Chandler wormed his way out of the effort. And it isn't as if Dr. Wood doesn't have disinformation. She drops a lot of dangling innuendo, doesn't connect chapters, draws no conclusions, and performed very shitty nuclear research.
But she has a great collection of pictorial evidence of FGNW mayhem correlated to map locations and perspectives, so that you get the true magnitude of the destruction. She collects lots of evidence together that 9/11 had nuclear components, but purposely drops that ball and pursues it in a shitty, dead-end way.
Google my name, find my blog, read my FGNW case, make up your own mind in a fair and objective way. I'm working on a newer version that rips A&E911truth a new one as well as Wayne Coste, but it is several weeks away.
Spoiler Alert: "nuclear blast" is what they do a great job of debunking, to the point that I agree. "Blast" implies large changes in air pressure that blows the buildings apart and spreads nuclear badness everywhere. Didn't happen like that.
FGNW are sub-kiloton from the get-go, and deliver 80% of their nuclear yield as targeted highly energetic neutrons (aimed upwards from point of ignition). The remaining 20% was heat wave, blast wave, EMP -- which did exist but were mitigated.
This is very important concept to grasp. FGNW couple their energy directly to their targets, what with neutrons able to pass through anything. In passing through, though, they leave energy behind. How did the concrete get pulverized? Trapped residual water molecules received heat from the highly energetic neutrons -- sufficient heat to turn instantly into gas whose expanding volumetric pressure blew the rest apart. Metal was ablated.
I love Mr. Chandler's video on the upper block of WTC-1 (I believe) which accordioned in on itself all at once. Mr. Chandler said words to the effect that the entire block went from its over-designed >100% strength instantly to 35% of its minimum strength (e.g., it went through its path of greatest resistance at 65% gravitational acceleration) and arrested the angular momentum of the leaning of that upper block through this dustification. By rights, it should have rolled off the upper building as a near cohesive whole and creamed the bathtub and neighboring buildings... But didn't.
//
x271 Marcel Lugtenborg : only a data distributor with enough skills to comprehend the basic level
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges Thank you for your opinion. I'm only a data distributor with enough skills to comprehend the basic level. I like to listen to credible specialists instead of thinking how things might have happened myself. As you mentioned mr Chandler did a great job. The pinnacle was the freefall of WTC7 which made Nist to acknowledge, but still could not explain. In my search and research for truth I found a remarkable fact stated by Chris Bollyn. (imho one of the best) Bollyn tells about Gordon Duff of Veterans Today, that he has to tell lies, otherwise he wouldn't be alive.(Think 1). Link: https://youtu.be/sw4UDcmOqp4?t=2714 .. Another link is about a hidden camera operation to reveal Zionist smear operations.. People who are pro Palestine or against Israel are destroyed/demonized. (Think 2) The next thing I want your attention for is Barbara Honegger. She knows very much about The Pentagon, She has a network of people in and out the Pentagon, She has done very meticulous research on this subject. And very important to establish someones integrity …> She names the names of the criminals who did 9/11 The dual US-Israelli collaborators from PNAC, Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. So, no doubt about on which side Barbara is on. Also you can be certain that Zionists do every trick in the book to demonise Barbara.(Think 3) Barbara's video Behind the Smoke Curtain, can be found on youtube. Barbara also posted a video to react on Chandler /Coste Pentagon analysis.. I value David Chandlers as the best for WTC7, and I value Barbara Honegger the best for the Pentagon. . Main thing is .. that we stick together as a truth movement.. Together we should conquer mainstream media so public research and debate can contribute to clear the facts.. (I have a dream...)
Chris Bollyn: Israel behind the 9-11 attacks-- and Iraq wars.
youtube.com
Chris Bollyn: Israel behind the 9-11 attacks-- and Iraq wars.
Chris Bollyn: Israel behind the 9-11 attacks-- and Iraq wars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05wSreYUUnY
Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence Overview Video Rebuttal
Barbara Honegger 2019 "Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence Overview Video Rebuttal"
youtube.com
Barbara Honegger 2019 "Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence…
Barbara Honegger 2019 "Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence Overview Video Rebuttal"
The Zionist Deception and Blackmail operations can imho be seen as responsible for the 'strange' conclusions of Coste and Chandler. Chandler did a tremendous good job in the freefall evidence of WTC and debunking Nist. I suggest to them if they want to be credible again they can show that by naming the zionists like Barbara Honegger did.. Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Richard Perle, Stanley Hilton, … Naming these zionists is probably the reason for Barbara being discredited by blackmailed of forced members from within the truthmovement. For more info about blackmail see Canary Mission and https://youtu.be/wByhwcBn3nk?t=2821
Hidden camera reveals zionist smear operations to destroy anyone against Israel or pro-palestine. Exposing lies on the canary mission website.
One of the funders is billionaire Adam Milstein according to this documentary.
The Lobby - Israel lobby in USA - part 3
youtube.com
The Lobby - Israel lobby in USA - part 3
The Lobby - Israel lobby in USA - part 3
x272 Maxwell C. Bridges : we stick together to the Truth
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, all great comments, but allow me to offer an amendment to this: "Main thing is .. that we stick together as a truth movement."
My amendment: "Main thing is... that we stick together to the Truth." Follow that Truth rabbit wherever it leads, regardless of how deep the rabbit-hole.
Because when it comes down to "sticking together as a movement..."? Meh.
Infiltration and compromised that we have known to expect for years of observing it done many times last century or longer. It should not be a surprise that the organization which sprang up to channel and focus our thought and emotions might also have infiltration issues, most evident by the topics deemed acceptable and those not.
Two of my super-powers are being naive and trusting. So I hold out the hope that AE911truth and others are keeping the nuclear 9/11 on the down-low until they can spring them forth at the trials they are helping spur into happening. In fact, that will be the litmus test whether they let Truth go where it needed to go.
... And geesh! Sincere and objective people are allowed to study new analysis and evidence (like camera scintillation after 9/11), change their mind, and offer apologies for having led others astray in the past with the disinfo that had duped them most cleverly.
They have an out.
If they are sincere.
//
x273 Marcel Lugtenborg : The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and AE911.org are most reliable
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/ and AE911.org are most reliable (/with high lever integrity ) to me.. However, I still think that there should be enough room for other opinions as long as not everything can be explained. I don't believe the nuke-theory, but technology had developed and don't know what is possible nowadays.. My lead for truth is the question how high is the level of integrity./and counterforce. of the publisher/scientist. If we ever want truth to come out, there has to be a Ghandi-like revolution. Starting with protest at mainstreammedia sites/buildings/ etc.. Would like to see people capable of organizing such an event.
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
x274 Maxwell C. Bridges : "I don't believe the nuke-theory..." either.
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, "I don't believe the nuke-theory..." either. There isn't a single theory, but most of them are purposely wrong, framing it as single devices per tower and deep-underground..So we are in agreement there.
But I did my research and I followed the rabbit holes given by footnotes in my search for Truth.
Read it for yourself. Make up your own mind. Stand on my shoulders.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
x275 Marcel Lugtenborg : How much nanothermite was used and where ?
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges Thank you. If I may ask, How much nanothermite was used and where ? Or don't you agree with nanothermite findings? What was the result of the used nanothermite? (Melting steel, pulverised concrete, white smoke, projectiles blowing away or changing direction in mid-air..or combination of before mentioned? )
x276 Maxwell C. Bridges : leveled on those who champion such
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, The question about how much nanothermite was used and where, really should be leveled on those who champion such. Their numbers for "how much" were huge, before considering that unspent amounts of such had to keep the under-rubble fires smoldering for months, making it kwazy obscenely large and not at all Occam Razor for logistics.
The "and where" question they haven't answered. NT doesn't answer the anomalies captured here by NIST.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
The NT findings were sketchy, and other sources of destruction could have accounted for things like the tiny iron spheres in the dust that they ASSUMED was the result of an NT reaction. The scope-limit hoodwinked the science-challenged right from the get-go.
I don't have to argue whether or not any NT was involved, and won't hurt my case in the least if some truly was part of this overly-redundant operation.
My beef has been that NT wasn't the primary cause of destruction, and is being propped up as if it were.
In the video, go to 44:00. Look at the "steel doobie". But then wait! It gets better. At 46:00, look at how the perfectly good NIST high quality state of the art camera starts misbehaving upon getting close and personal with radiated steel. Images of bolt holes in spandrals that were ripped out as if a piece of paper out of a notebook.
//
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
youtube.com
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY,…
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
The "squibs" well below the crash wave? The (conventional) shaped-charge detonation to initiate fission to get heat necessary for fusion, which then released its highly-energetic neutrons in a controlled fashion upwards.
Material changing direction in flight and Chandler says it is igniting chemical explosives or such. Could very well be, and I have no problem. Could also be EMP or nuetrons from devices lower slipping through the window slits and acting on falling content. Could be both. [The agreement is that it was controlled, and wasn't gravitational acceleration only.]
//
1:09:00, faces of the wall assemblies rolled over like spegheti, and the exhibition of camera scintillation.
//
x277 Marcel Lugtenborg : suspicious for trolls
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges Thank you very much for this video. I have to study this and think it over.. I'm suspicious for trolls, so that is why I might not be as polite as I would be when I' m sure about your remarks and video. (Apologies) As long as you say it is a controlled demolition.. (and would be nice if you confirm you thoughts heading towards.. Zionists..) I'm with you.
x278 Maxwell C. Bridges : not a troll
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I may be an asshole for having deviant 9/11 Truth beliefs and not giving up so easily 9/11 nukes, but I'm not a troll.
To your last point, Zionists were the ones who did 9/11, some from within the US government, and some without. Aside from US arsenals, Israel is about the only country that could match the effectiveness of the US nuclear wizardry, in part because they probably got them from our arsenals anyway. Israel was the main beneficiary of 9/11 and its aftermath and regime change wars.
I can easily be duped away from my 9/11 nuclear views, but that requires evidence and a rational argument. When I dived into the Dr. Jones rabbit holes and all those who follow NT, NT comes up lacking and the actions of 9/11 leaders suspicious.
I'm still more than a few weeks out in my next thesis which tears apart Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for their scope-limited anti-9/11-nuke pieces. But I'm at it, slowly, and am motivated to at least overcome my burn-out and procrastination to set the record straight.
//
x279 Marcel Lugtenborg : beyond any doubt about NanoThermite
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges I am beyond any doubt about NanoThermite being used.,. I am almost certain about no nukes being involved, but I do acknowledge multiple (unknown) technologies are used to pull this off. I value you contribution very much, and I will follow you on this subject. Thanks.
x280 Maxwell C. Bridges : a hypothesis-in-search-of-evidence and ignoring evidence that it couldn't explain
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I would have no problems being convinced that NT was involved. I hope that it was. However, the more I dug into "the case for NT", the more it unraveled as a hypothesis-in-search-of-evidence and ignoring evidence that it couldn't explain.
But let's just set NT on the shelf for a moment, because its involvement doesn't have to be exclusivity, which is another fault in its promotion. I've provided a link to an even earlier article of mine (with overlap to the newer article), because it slaughters the NT sacred cow.
You are almost certain about no nukes being involved?!! On what do you base your certainty?
Chances are, I have already debunked it, including Dr. Jones' stilted "nuke reputiation" paper and the sources he relied upon (unquestioned and unchallenged).
Whether or not NT was involved, it can't explain the "wavey" beams or the box columns coming unwelded at its joints, visible in the videos. Or the real-time evidence of radiation. Or the stilted tritium report. Or the energy of pulverization. Or that even Dr. Shyam Sunder debunks legitimately conventional chemical-based weapons, because the destruction wasn't loud enough.
I'll not use FB to convince you, because I'd only be repeating what I wrote in my blog that you can read on your own.
Here's another point. While it in itself isn't really a solid argument for nuclear involvement, it is worth considering with an open-mind. ASSUME for the purposes of discussion and the remainder of this comment, that FGNW were used. But the government isn't keen on divulging is means and methods. What efforts would they go to in order to squash such thinking by the public and why?
Aside from the low radiation nature, the "nuking ourselves" theme shows just how bat-shit crazy the zionist neo-cons were, and other nations better watch out.
But were this to become public, the figurative nuclear fallout from that, even from 17 years ago or so, could still have damaging effects to our government, our institutions, to our very nation.
Do you think the government would leave it to chance that the public wouldn't stumble upon nuclear clues and connect the dots? No. They would have pumping the disinformation away from this premise from many angles. Their chief angle is by framing the nuclear involvement completely wrong -- large nukes, lots of radiation, lots of fallout, deep-underground, "blast waves", etc.
The audio signature is a huge clue. Not loud enough to be conventional chemical-based explosives, yet not soft enough to be gravity by itself.
Oh well. I've planted my seed.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x281 Marcel Lugtenborg : reasons for Neo Cons/Zionists to promote the Nuke theory
2019-11-05
Again, thank you. I will study this, but I can easily think of reasons for Neo Cons/Zionists to promote the Nuke theory and shove it to Bin Laden in Court. The case is that Nano-thermite controlled demolition had to be rigged months in advance.. while a nuke could be brought in by a lorry.. the day before... Not saying it happened this way, but I'm carefull with unscientific explanations.. And NanoThermite is scientific proof. For the first time however, I've been convinced to study the possibility of nuke tech being involved. Not ruling this option out anymore.. Thank you. I'll be back
x282 Maxwell C. Bridges : more light and water
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I regret my disagreement with just about everything you wrote in your last comment. The nuke theory could ~not~ be scapegoated to Bin Laden very easily, and opens it up to follow-up questions like how they acquired them and whose nuclear arsenal has inventory missing.
You wrote "while a nuke..." ... Let me stop that right there, because is frames things improperly. I'm talking multiple FGNW per tower and per WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7.
To your point modified, "while several nukes could be brought in by lorry... the day before..." is practically right on the money. Bomb-sniffing dogs only had a few days of vacation immediately prior to 9/11. According to Dr. Jones, (assuming for a moment) NT was mixed with something else like RDX to achieve the brisance which then would have been detected by those bomb-sniffing dogs in the weeks/months of preparation.
These FGNW would have required some preparatory work, like where they were mounted and aimed, possibly even with structure that could mask flashes from the ignition phases.
I dispute the scientific proof of NT, or at least, of NT being so allegedly prominent everywhere. It was not called out in the USGS study of the dust (although radioactive elements and their decay elements were); it was not called out in RJ Lee or severak other studies on the dust. (Only called out from Dr. Jones' dust samples.)
WHAT WAS DISCOVERED in all reports was a high percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust. In their scope-limited efforts, Dr. Jones / Harrit ASSUMED it was the result of an NT chemical reaction and extrapolated backwards how much it was. AND IT WAS OBSCENELY LARGE even before considering the extra and unspent NT necessarily to maintain the under-rubble hots-spots for weeks/months.
The tiny iron spheres indicated a really hot heat source. When Dr. Cahill was measuring the downwind air for a couple months (with a last start of beginning of October already), the metals he was measuring in the air samples indicated sufficiently high heat still present to have continually GENERATED those particles. [Some FGNW may not have reached their full nuclear yield and may have "fizzled" instead, a legitimate nuclear term.]
Dr. Griffin says that none of the relevant evidence should be ignored. Well, at the 22:00 mark is a pieces of wall assembly rolled into a "doobie" and "smoked part way to a stub". Flagged by NIST several times as important. [Watch to at least 22:42.] No NIST explanation, however. Not from AE911truth either. The narrator on the video cracked a funny when looking at it. "What... in the hell got that. That's a mystery that those guys will have to figure out."
https://youtu.be/bOQOBIhxNEE?t=1323
My FGNW premise explains more anomalies of the NIST filmed scrap yard footage than the NT-crowd.
Thanks for letting my seed germinate a little. The above is some more light and water.
//
x283 Marcel Lugtenborg : you are a zionist troll
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges Thank you for now I am 100% sure, you are a zionist troll attempting to deceive.. Have a nice day.. and please back off with your nonsens
x284 Maxwell C. Bridges : Me? A zoinist troll? Fail.
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, me? A zoinist troll? Fail. Try reading my FB wall.
You, on the other hand, seem incapable of recognizing what is being put right in front of your eyes and has many touch points. Cognitive dissonance runs deep even in supposedly open-minded 9/11 Truthers, who once they get invested in a premise (like NT), can't be shaken loose even when that premise doesn't explain OR EVEN ATTEMPT to explain much of the evidence.
By point of comparison, the true zionist trolls who peddle nukes malframe the devices as being too large, deep underground, large "blast waves", etc. Easy to debunk.
Or they try to leave discussions at Woodsian DEW or Jonesian NT.
//
x285 Marcel Lugtenborg : Take your piss somewhere else
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges Take your piss somewhere else
x286 Maxwell C. Bridges : your counter-arguments against FGNW are running a bit out of steam
2019-11-05
Dear Marcel Lugtenborg, what means this anger directed at me?!! What means these insults -- "zionist", "troll", "piss" -- that have no bearing on me?
Guess your counter-arguments against FGNW are running a bit out of steam. Scraping the bottom of your ammo barrel, leaving you nothing but ad hominem. Your cognitive dissonance about NT is giving you headaches and causing you to behave badly.
So put on your NT hat and view some of that NIST tape 2 of 2.
At 1:27:00, NIST looks at a perimeter column (3/4" web) bent into a C-shape, "a big arc."
What placement of NT in the tower would achieve this? (And why?)
And then put on the FGNW hat and see if volume heating as a result of highly energetic neutrons emitted from a FGNW could explain this.
And if you're still watching around 1:40:00, what is with the camera acting up?
Meanwhile, lurker latter-day readers will judge from this discussion that I made my case (for FGNW). You made / defended your case (for NT) so poorly, that your last rebuttals have you spewing unfounded "zionist" insults and telling me to take a hike.
You know how to reach me in order to school me properly on causes of destruction. Do your homework, which amounts to double-checking my homework. Let me know when you find errors, so I can amend my views if warranted.
//
Maxwell Bridges You are just a troll hiding behind a fake politeness. You pretend to know better than dozens of credible Scientists... You are fake. I recommend anybody seeing this to check Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, LCfor911.org and don't pay any attention to this timeconsuming troll
x287 Maxwell C. Bridges : fake politeness, a debate tactic
2019-11-05
Dear Marcel Lugtenborg, there is nothing wrong with fake politeness, a debate tactic that I recognized and honed in the double-aughts. Not only did it remove foul language as an excuse for banishment or running afoul of forum etiquette, but it helped me from the onset in writing words worthy of preservation.
You wrote that I "pretend to know better than dozens of credible Scientists." No. I am just smart enough and persistent enough to read through what seems to substantiate their opinions -- the reports they accepted at face-value unquestioned and unchallenged -- and discovered the errors that led them (purposely) to wrong conclusions.
You? You don't have the smarts or persistence for that. (I bet you haven't read my two posted articles end-to-end yet.) With your "dozens of credible Scientists" statement, you are essentially appealing to authority and accept what anyone with a PhD plops in front of you. Too bad for you, because it kind of shoots holes into your 9/11 Truther objectivity and turns you into a hypocrite.
(What makes you think that the 9/11 Truth Movement wouldn't be actively infiltrated? NPT at the WTC, deep underground nukes, DEW from space, gravity pile-drivers... And Nano Thermite.)
If I was wrong, someone (smarter than you) could simply step through my premise section-by-section and identify the errors, and I would be most grateful for the correction.
But there is an old disinformation trick that if you address any aspect of an opponent's premise, you essentially validate it as a real thing to be debunked rather than as a "figment of someone's imagination" not requiring effort. AE911Truth never did address Dr. Wood's book; neither did Mr. David Chandler, and I was the one who personally purchased him his copy (back before I saw the light and shifted towards nuclear involvement.) AE911Truth's one lame attempt spent half of its short word count promoting NT rather than identifying evidence (nuggets of truth) from Wood's work that essentially any 9/11 theory-du-jour has to address.
As for nukes? Dr. Jones did a good "blinded-by-science" to completely malframed it in 2007 (while missing a decade of Dr. Andre Gsponer's work into FGNW and a 2005 paper), and then filled the void with NT that can't explain all of the evidence (and they don't even fucking try.) This sufficed for many years until AE911Truth was finally nudged into addressing nukes, which jumps from a webpage into two PDF files absolutely choked full of footnotes that, when you follow them, prove cherry-picking of insignificant aspects while ignoring what is damning. They frame it as "nuclear blast", in a very 3rd-generation-nuclear-weapon's sense. No mention of neutron bombs or their bastard offspring FGNW.
You pat yourself on the back at being smart enough not to fall for NIST's lies and those of the 9/11 Commission Report, yet seem completely content (by design) with the half-baked efforts of AE911Truth.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they've been fooled."~Mark Twain.
If anything I wrote above insults you, good! Let it jar you out of your complacency. Are you really as objective as you claim? Prove it.
Here's something per-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
x288 Marcel Lugtenborg : still value you as a troll
2019-11-05
Maxwell Bridges Thanks for sharing the David Chandler video... For the rest I still value you as a troll.
x289 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thank you for your participation and contribution
2019-11-05
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, It pleases me to no end that I still have value in your eyes.
According to Wikipedia: "a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."
You make the claim that I am a troll; you should defend it... in a new thread. (Let's not pollute this rational nuclear discussion thread.) I'd like to know what characteristics I exhibit that puts me into such a category. Examples would be appreciated of my efforts "to distract and sow discord" and "to provoke readers into displaying emotional responses in a tangential discussion" (e.g., flame war.)
JUST KIDDING!
Were you to engage in such, you'd be the one distracting and sowing discord! We don't need to go there, and I'll set aside the fact that you started calling me "zionist" and "troll" names first, as if it was your intention to get an emotional response out of me.
+++
Meanwhile, I didn't share the David Chandler video; you did. That's like two factual errors in your first sentence alone. WTF? It almost reeks of failed bot algorithms.
What I shared were two NIST videos that show more evidence of nuclear mahem than NT mahem. I shared a peer-reviewed article that was published in a reputable science journal that discussed "exotic nukes" (FGNW) before various 9/11 TM leaders wrote their initial "no-nukes" faulty papers. I shared two articles penned by me that stack the 9/11 evidence blocks into a viable 9/11 nuclear tower with fewer gaps than the NT premise.
From my perspective, I've been having a reasoned, rational, level-headed conversation that started with me responding to your Chandler video posting & first comment by pointing out where Mr. Chandler got things wrong. The conversation progressed with me defending honorably & most admirably my premise.
+++
Early in this thread, you wrote: "I'm only a data distributor with enough skills to comprehend the basic level."
In this regard, you were indeed correct, and I am in complete agreement.
As a data distributor, you've posted something that you don't understand and can't defend. Worse, "with (only) enough skills to comprehend the basic level", you are ill-equiped to open-mindedly and objectively research anything outside of what you were given (or paid) to distribute.
Anything I write or link isn't going to convince you to shift your 9/11 views, because "data distributors" aren't paid to think or deviate from the agenda.
When you tote an agenda like that? Well,... it makes your views less genuine and you less sincere as a person.
In fact, it opens a whole new pandora's box of government infiltration of forums (and bot algorithms) that can be laid at your feet as Exhibit A.
Thank you, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, for your participation and contribution, in more ways than one.
//
x290 Maxwell C. Bridges : returning to topic
Let's try this again, seeing how Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg was incapable of staying on topic on my last attempt at this thread.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
I wrote:
+++
If you read Dr. Wood's very own words and understand, she never considered her research to be the end-station. Her main goal was to get rational consideration of all of the evidence. Because she dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, did not power her premises with anything real-world, did not connect dots, did not draw conclusions, did a shitty job of nuclear research, and did not name serial numbers of weapons, her work can't be the end-station but a mid-station.
You can use this to identify the Woodsian disinfo agents when they fail to recognize these glaring deficiencies, fail to stand on Wood's shoulders, and fail to take the work to the next level.
Woodsian DEW and 9/11 nukes should have married much sooner, because clearly the devil spawn was FGNW exhibited on 9/11 (but probably first at OKC).
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
x291 Marcel Lugtenborg : scientists that studied your premises?
2019-11-12
Who are the scientists that studied your premises? Names please.. I don't spent time on text and more text.. Just to keep me busy. Name me the names of the scientists and then (I promise,) I will study and analyse with friends.. Evidence mr Maxwel Bridges.!! I've seen enough BS. I gave you evidence..and names..
x292 Maxwell C. Bridges : you are just stalling for time
2019-11-12
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, this isn't the first time I've drawn your attention to my blog posting. You should have read (and studied) it already. Ergo, you are just stalling for time.
And WTF would I want to start with your arguments that champion NT when the discussion in this thread is about FGNW? That's a distraction.
Furthermore, I've already debunked NT in another blog posting that was also posted and you promised to read in that other thread.
Ain't my job to do your busy work.
The topic here is FGNW and there are 19 sections or so to explore.
Doesn't bother me in the least if you want to hang onto NT, but NT has to explain ~all~ the evidence. It and you have not.
Please explain -- on a thread or posting of your own -- how this wonderful plasma ARC could be used to create the artifacts of hollow box columns (from the wall assemblies) that seem to come undone at their corner welds that went the length (30') of the box column.
Or, how about the hollow box column that had a gash throughout its length and through a spandrel?
Or, how does it explain the many instances of steel doobies?
Or, how does NT explain tritium in the run-off?
Or, how does NT explain Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities in the dust?
Again, please do this on your own thread.
This thread is for talking about FGNW.
Curious that this is now at least our second round (could be third), and you still haven't waded into my premise and taken it apart section by section.
Lame, so lame. Toting an agenda, I see.
//
x293 Marcel Lugtenborg : You behave very much like a troll.
2019-11-12
Maxwell Bridges You behave very much like a troll. How come? Lots of bladibla but no evidence.. Questions to deceive, questions to degrade, questions to smear.. All troll tactics.. Please have a look at this, and don't forget to look at my previous posts...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
youtube.com
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
1
x294 Maxwell C. Bridges : sounds like an excellent research project for you to gather this sacred information
2019-11-12
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, it is not my job to monitor the web traffic of Cornell University's website's physics department to see who has read it. Nor is it my job to find out who peer-reviewed what.
Seeing how this is the bone you want to pick, then sounds like an excellent research project for you to gather this sacred information. You'll probably wrap it in some ad hominem diversion rather than reading and understanding what is relevant.
But let me give you a hint. This article had five (5) versions between October 2005 and February 2006. Must mean someone who was a subject matter expert was reviewing it and meriting that Dr. Gsponer amend his work and come up with these five version.
And this isn't to mention that Dr. Gsponer was writing about this theme for a decade at least before this article was published.
As for your latest plasma ARC & thermite re-tread (which I happened to have read many years ago), Please delete it from this and the other thread where I was top-level commenter and discussing FGNW. It is off topic here, particularly when you created your own top-level thread in this very discussion for it.
You are spamming the discussion I want to have with your lame NT theories that can't explain a fraction of the NIST video evidence.
Me? A troll?
Don't be pawning your strengths and weaknesses onto me.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
arxiv.org
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
x295 Maxwell C. Bridges : "a mystery that the other guys will have to solve."
2019-11-12
Whatever theory you champion, gotta address all the evidence.
Video is cued at a truncated or half-smoked "steel doobie". Narrator even said at 22:46 that this is "a mystery that the other guys will have to solve." In another thread, the NT-ers like Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg should describe how NT made it happen. How did all that wrinkling happen at the truncated end of the half-smoked steel doobie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE...
Fascinating. At 1:27:00 it shows a column that got bent into a C-shape.
My FGNW theory explains all this easily.
//
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
youtube.com
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY,…
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
x296 Michael W. Lurie : intent separates dis- from mis-
2019-11-12
"The only difference between misinformation and disinformation is intent. " - me
x297 Maxwell C. Bridges : Not just "no", but "glaringly no".
2019-11-12
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you've tried twice to side-track the discussion on FGNW with the lame "Who are the scientists that studied your premises? Names please."
I gave you a name: Dr. Andre Gsponer who had co-authors of his work, and we can only assume that Cornell University assigned peer-reviewers to his paper that he went through 5 version and his earlier books.
Just as importantly, where are all the scientists who debunk Dr. Gsponer's work.
Did Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jenkins, and Dr. Wood? Did David Chandler, Jon Cole, or Richard Gage?
No.
Not just "no", but "glaringly no". I even had direct contact with David Chandler, who claimed Dr. Wood's book was disinformation but failed to even read it to identify the good, the bad, and the ugly. When my beliefs shifted, I communicated with him to get his comments, his corrections, and even his debunking. No show.
Be careful, because Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth FAQ #15 only debunks a "nuclear blast", and that in a stilted and underhanded way that ignored huge areas from Jeff Prager while focusing on minutia. FAQ #15 does not debunk nuclear involvement, and most certainly doesn't mention FGNW.
You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to do basic research at your institution of higher education and come to a good understanding of some of the nuclear capabilities at the turn of the century.
But let's be clear. Anybody whose career involves nuclear physics probably signed a stiff non-disclosure with charges of treason, long prison sentences, or the death penalty hanging over their head.
//
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
x298 Marcel Lugtenborg : The Great Thermate Debate
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
9/11 Experiements: The Great Thermate Debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
x299 Maxwell C. Bridges : NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards
2019-11-13
Impressive. Now figure out the logistics of putting this wonder NT on every floor of two 110 story buildings, plus critical locations in WTC-7, a secure 47 story building, and WTC-6, -5, -4...
How how was NT placed to create this NIST artifact -- a half-smoked steel doobie with a wilted stub?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE...
Patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
You're making the case for NT, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, so you defend it. How does NT address the evidence in the above video.
For the sake of discussion, let's just start with 21:00 and 1:27:00 and the artifacts discussed there, respectively, the half-smoked and wilted stub of a steel doobie and the large box column bent smoothly into a C.
Frankly, the NT that your video puts into the corner and gives wonderful effects? Well, in following Dr. Griffin's example, please explain how Mr. Jon Cole's thermitic box-cutter (8 minutes into your video) would accomplish those two examples from NIST.
//
//
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
youtube.com
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
x300 Marcel Lugtenborg : still can't name any scientists
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
Youre a troll.. If you find a huge pile of shit, then you go figure out what the color of the horse was? You still can't name any scientists (a few working in a group.. not a lonely bribed one.) who support your bullshit story...
Marcel Lugtenborg
You still don't get it.. Nanothermite is scientificly proven. You ignore that and you want to convince ordinary people to believe you're story.. without any evidence only based on you're findings.. That means you are a TROLL or an Idiot
x301 Maxwell C. Bridges : prove it by having NT account for the wilted stub of a steel doobie
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you make the claim that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction, yet you call me a troll when I simply request that you prove it by having it account for the wilted stub of a steel doobie and a large box column bent smoothly into a C at respectively 21:00 and 1:27:00 in the video of my top-level comment that anchors this thread.
Your inability to stay on topic even when it is your topic starts to delineate the parameters that make you up. The glaring one is an inability to "deep-dive" and do your own research.
Examples: you never read my two FGNW blog postings, the peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal FGNW article by Dr. Andre Gsponer, and what is becoming apparent now is Dr. Jones' work itself.
How so on the latter? Dr. Jones did not attempt to explain glaring artifacts (like just the two I've given you from NIST), the duration of hot-spots, how NT was mixed with something more brisance to achieve observed pulverization... You never read and contemplated the limits of their work, such as the fact it is all based on an ASSUMPTION simply stated: the tiny iron spheres found in high percentages in the dust THEY ASSUMED were exclusively the result of an NT reaction.
So, whereas you call me a troll, it is as if you are trying to pawn your weaknesses onto me. You crap on what I researched and put together, yet all you can offer are what OTHERS GAVE you, with no real understanding or desire to understand the limits of those premises and the wide margin for error.
It would be no skin off my nose or my premise if NT was involved. But sure as shit, it wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction. What quantities are required for pulverization? What quantities unspent from the pulverization task would be required to maintain the under-rubble hot-spots for months, to the point that when Dr. Cahill late started in October in measuring samples downwind, he determined that the metals found in the air samples meant a high heat source that still continued to generate such. [None of your wimpy-ass thermite videos have it burning for months.]
You make the claim that NT was the primary mechanisms of destruction. You prove it. Speculate rationally and objectively how NT could cause those artifacts.
... And if you try to back-pedal and say, "I never claimed NT was the primary mechanism of destruction," my response is gonna be "well then, why the F did you stop your personal research into the primary mechanism of destruction and why the F do you settle for something that is clearly less than the complete truth and a limited hang-out."
Chop, chop.
//
x302 Marcel Lugtenborg : you provide NO names of scientists
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Again and Again you provide NO names of scientists, no evidence to support your BS. Long story bs.. Again I point to evidence. Check L Paul Bremer, Komatsu Ltd (Patent) Bremer was also a member of the board for Akzo Nobel, the parent of International Paint, a company that produced a fireproofing application for skyscrapers called Interchar. ** It is less well known that Bremer's relationship to Marsh started earlier. In fact, on 9/11, Bremer was the CEO of Marsh Political Risk Practice and he had an office in the south tower. That day, he was interviewed on NBC television, stating that Osama bin Laden was responsible and that possibly Iraq and Iran were involved too, and he called for the most severe military response possible. Google removed the interview video from its servers three times, and blocked it once. Check the facts and if you provide evidence I will check it.. I don't spent time on BS though. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5532449...
US5532449A - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete - Google Patents
patents.google.com
US5532449A - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish…
US5532449A - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete - Google Patents
x303 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Andre Gsponer
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, again you are caught red-handed not reading my comment, much less anything referenced by my comment. Let me spell it out for you again.
Dr. Andre Gsponer
Dr. André Gsponer is Director of the Geneva-based Independent Scientific Research Institute (ISRI), founded in 1982 to study the arms-control/disarmament implications of emerging technologies. Check out his Resume:
http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf
He's fluent in three languages and has been writing highly technical papers in all three for multiple decades. Where are all the scientist who debunk his work?
He's done work with Suren Erkman, Jean-Pierre Hurni, Stephan Klement, and others. More name dropping for you.
Where are your scientists who debunk or discredit his work?
Thus, your attempt at ad-homimem attacks aimed at people instead of the premise falls on its face.
//
x304 Marcel Lugtenborg : Indeed I don't read troll papers.
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Deceiving Troll. Again and again.. Israel is committing terrorism against the whole world.. and 9/11 was part of their terrorism.
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Indeed I don't read troll papers.. So I didn't see the names you provided. I will check and come back on this.
x305 Maxwell C. Bridges : try to pawn your character traits onto me
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you wrote: "Israel is committing terrorism against the whole world.. and 9/11 was part of their terrorism." I agree.
But your lead-off was aimed at me in an unfriendly way. "Troll. Again and again."
Yes, "again and again" you try to pawn your character traits onto me. But "troll" is not my M.O. "Duped useful idiot", maybe. But all it takes is a proper scientific analysis of all the evidence to convince me of something else. This, you haven't done, and neither have your NT heroes in the 9/11 TM.
What is the first sign of you being a troll? Three (or more) lame responses to my one comment, as if paid to post (not to mention your tag-teaming Mr. Rik Scholten). All of your comments could have been wrapped into one. In fact, you can and should have delayed your response until you had done your homework. I would have waited.
Second sign of you being a troll, Mr. Lugtenborg, is that this thread belongs to you and is supposed to discuss YOUR claim that NT was primary mechanism of destruction. When I post a NIST video of evidence that all 9/11 theories-du-jour (including NT) would need to explain (brought to your attention several times now), YOU DROP THE BALL. You try to side-step and try to drag things from a neighboring thread into this one.
Have you answered the questions posed in my top-level comment that contained the NIST videos? No.
But here's the most glaring flag of you, Mr. Lugtenborg, being a troll. You wrote: "Indeed I don't read troll papers."
WTF?!! Talk about dinging your own character. As if ~WE~ could ever have a rational, reasoned, and legimate discussion on any topic when you so blatantly prove that you are not genuine, are not sincere, certainly are not a sincere seeker of truth, because you won't read (a) what I wrote to summarize a premise or (b) the references that substantiates my opinions.
//
x306 Maxwell C. Bridges : prove NT was the primary mechanism of destruction
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, Obviously your tag-team partner was losing so bad, he had to call in for re-enforcements. You, like Mr. Lugtenborg, do not even know what you are arguing.
I'll grant you that the deceit of Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth isn't always easy to spot in a purposeful "blinded-by-science" sense. And their true deceit isn't what they researched and wrote, but what they didn't.
So that we're clear. Mr. Lugtenborg and you seem to be arguing that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction. I am having you prove it. [My premise does not exclude the possibility that NT was involved, but it rationally moves forward that FGNW was the primary mechanism of destruction.]
Mr. Lugtenborg already has the assignment (from my top-level comment and the NIST video) of explaining the half-smoked & wilted stub of a steel doobie (21:00) and the large box column bent smoothly into a "C" (1:27:00).
You could help him if you wish, but the more important assignment for you is to find all of the reports that list NT or any chemical-based explosives in the dust.
Because I'm a fair and generous fellow, let me give you some hints. Dr. Jones samples are the only ones allegedly with NT.
The reports from USGS, RJ Lee Group, and Paul Lioy et al DO NOT HAVE NT OR CHEMICAL EXPLOSIVES.
What they do have is a high percentage of iron spheres, with the deceit being that allegedly only NT can create those. [FGNW can create them, too, and still have energy left-over to volume heat steel into bending into arcs and getting wall assemblies to wrap themselves into steel-doobies, and turn concrete to dust, and maintain (through nuclear-fizzle) under-rubble hot-spots), but I digress.]
Here's something that the USGS has in its tables that summarize their more thorough set of dust samples. It has Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities. Yet plain text of this same report completely ignores this anomaly.
And let's not forget tritium, tritium, tritium.
I suggest you re-review the work of Dr. Jones and look for areas where they omitted things. His no-nukes reputiation paper? Doesn't mention neutron devices or any of the derivatives that make up all fourth generation nuclear devices. The more recent FAQ #15 tries to frame things as "nuclear blasts" doing destruction by sudden changes of air pressure to blow things apart. Given their scope-limit, I agree with its conclusions, but its true deceitful purpose is to take all nuclear devices off the table.
I posted the FGNW work of a reputable nuclear scientist and then his CV, and all Mr. Lugtenborg could ask was who peer-reviewed this.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Guess what? It comes from the same Cornell University repository as your paper, Mr. Scholten.
Why didn't Dr. Jones see this? All five versions of this were published before Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" paper, as were several versions of Dr. Gsponer's book?
For the record, Dr. Andre Gsponer to my knowledge has never written anything about 9/11. And he has had a lengthy career of some reputation in the field of nuclear weapons.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you have been cleverly duped with NT.
Google my name, find my blog, enlighten yourself.
//
x307 Marcel Lugtenborg : Firemen witnessed the whole event
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges DeceptionTroll... Find some evidence provided by people who researched 911. Did you ever have a look at LCfor911.org.. Firemen witnessed the whole event.. Goya just came out with an official statement of explosives etc. Did you hear him or other first responders say anything to back your BS? https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/
x308 Rik Scholten : toilets to be cleaned
2019-11-13
Rik Scholten
Maxwell Bridges
There's toilets to be cleaned
Rik Scholten
Maxwell Bridges
I have no theorie about NT
Bút the facts are Clear.
It was in the dust and should'n have been
And the patent is a fact as is Paul bremers footprint ALL over the place
x309 Maxwell C. Bridges : all of the TM groups were destined to be infiltrated and imploded from within
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, Bravo on that very clever, well researched, and well articulated first rebuttal. I really don't know how I'm supposed to respond to such beautiful rhetoric: "There's toilets to be cleaned." I'm speechless. Your intellect and wit surpasses mine.
Thankfully, your second comment has some more meat to it.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that the red molten steel we see streaming out of the towers before their demise was NT and for all we know were in the offices that L. Paul Bremer occupied at the WTC, making placement of his whack-a-doodle thermite cutter easy to accomplish. I'm not arguing against this.
The issues remain, NT could not have pulverized content, dustified the concrete, ablated the metal, bent large steel pieces into arcs and "C" shapes, ~AND~ maintained under-rubble hot-spots for months.
However, to correct you yet again on the same point, NT was ~NOT~ as represented in the dust as you have been duped into claiming.
Set Dr. Jones' dust samples aside for a moment. Nobody else, no group who studied the dust, claims that NT was in the dust. If you study closely, they make note of the high percentage of tiny iron spheres, which necessitates a really high temperature to create. If you look closer still, you'll see Uranium, Barium, Stratium, Lithium, etc. (decay elements in correlated quantities).
Dr. Jones has major issues in his "repudiation" of nuclear involvement. This earlier analysis from me takes it apart. He accepts unquestioned and unchallenged various reports as being definitive, when in reality they had issues and should not have been treated as the final, authoritative word on what was or wasn't present in the dust. Dr. Jones frames the nuclear weapons inappropriately, introduces a major logic error, and re-defines trace amounts to be 55 times greater than it should have been. These errors alone call into question his sincerity, and to be sure, the trend line extends into his NT work and his dust samples, a limited-hang-out designed to keep the public from considering FGNW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Whether or not NT was involved doesn't negate in the least my FGNW premise, because I'm not arguing mutual-exclusivity like the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement are with their "NT! NT! NT!" chants.
Yes, it appears that all of the TM groups were destined to be infiltrated and imploded from within. I take no pleasure in pointing out the detonator and how they duped everyone. I just care about the truth.
//
x310 Maxwell C. Bridges : a demonstration of your bot-ish and troll-agent ways
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, You are the one making the claim that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction. I am having you prove it. Alas, in a demonstration of your bot-ish and troll-agent ways, you have yet to do so in the 29 comments of this thread so far that I've tried to keep focused on the NT limited hang-out.
And I gave you such an easy assignment, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
The NIST video shows the half-smoked and wilted stub of a steel doobie (21:00) and the large box column bent smoothly into a C (1:27:00).
Your task was to speculate into the placement of NT that would result in those NIST artifacts.
Patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Regardless of the childish "DeceptionTroll" names that you call me, you are the one in this thread promoting the NT deception that you can neither describe nor defend. Who's the "DeceptionTroll"?
//
x311 Rik Scholten : Harrit was peereviewed
2019-11-13
Rik Scholten
De toon is exact dezelfde als die Van Sander knol.
Zouden ze een opleiding krijgen in het trollen ?
Rik Scholten
The tone is exactly the same as sander knol's.
Would they get a training in the trolls?
Rik Scholten
Maxwell Bridges
Niels Harrit wrote
Yes we are shure by the nature of the material discovered that it was carefully composed material and not just residu of primer or such.
The scientific work of Niels harrit & c/o, has never been refuted.
In this clip Niels Harrit talks about himself and nanothermite.
https://youtu.be/0lU-vu2JvZY
This is more in depth:
https://youtu.be/PZ1B2TqBIM0
The report itself
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
Fires did not cause WTC7s collapse, that is the conclusion of a four year study done by Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his team. The conclusion is, that it was near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building, that made it collapse.
Such a precise failure of almost every column in the building, can only be accomplished by timed explosions, like in a controlled demolition.
The study shows, that the conclusions of National Institute of Standards and Technology was wrong, and that Niels Harrit, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth etc., is right.
You can download the report (114 pages), by following this link.
https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7...
lowing this link.
https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7...
9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - AE911Truth.org Niels Harrit-Chemist
youtube.com
9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - AE911Truth.org…
9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - AE911Truth.org Niels Harrit-Chemist
Rik Scholten
Harrit was peereviewed by David Griscom
Rik Scholten
Griscom is a wellrespected scientist as is Niels Harrit
Rik Scholten
:
No photo description available.
{mcb: David L Griscom image.}
Rik Scholten
phony as a three-dollar bill this Walter Maxwell white-Bridges is.
Rik Scholten
The patented device/material:
Abstract
A plasma arc can be employed to demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like. The concrete structure can be demolished by melting a surface of the concrete structure by generating a plasma arc from a plasma torch (15) of a plasma arc generator, mixing thermite powder (T) with a supply gas (Gc) for the plasma torch (15), directing the plasma arc at the surface of the concrete structure, and controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in response to the operation of the plasma arc, including initiating and stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in a manner coordinated with the initiation and stoppage of the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction, and melting the surface of the concrete structure. The plasma generator (1) can be provided with a feeder (20) for mixing the thermite powder (T) with the supply gas (Gc), and controller (30) for controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) or for stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T).
x312 Marcel Lugtenborg : From the shitty trollfactory
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
Rik Scholten From the shitty trollfactory
x313 Maxwell C. Bridges : Seven to One and "Toon"-Schmoon
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, seven (7) responses to my last lonely (1) comment, and not one of them explained how NT was positioned to account for just two (2) examples from the NIST video, as requested at least three times in this thread alone.
"Toon"-Schmoon, Mr. Scholten. I ain't the one dodging and weaving like an agent weasel whose agenda prevents him from reviewing objectively other 9/11 premises that explains the evidence better. 7-to-1 puts the "trollen" label on your forehead like a Dole Banana sticker.
I have a blog (and a website). I've been at this 9/11 research evidently longer than you, and in a sincere, truthful manner.
I welcome comments. I want my FGNW premise to be debunked.
But you two "phony as a three-dollar bill" from the "shitty trollfactory" are either incapable of such, or ordered not to even attempt it. Mr. Lugtenborg bragged earlier how his job was just to post things, and he had no expertise to analyze it or think for himself, or to read anything outside the agenda.
Neither of you have read anything I've posted, not even the article (one of many) that Dr. Gsponer published at Cornell University.
You are not debating in good faith.
+++ Quote from what you didn't read.
If we assume briefly that NT was the main mechanism, how much would be required? Dr. Nils Harrit made some calculations to this end. He started with the analysis that the RJ Lee group did with dust from the lobby of a neighboring building, where they found 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3,p.28 in the 2003 Report). Dr. Harrit wrote:
=== Quote from Dr. HarritThere were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11,660 tonnes = 11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower. ... If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition), RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:
(10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143,000,000 kg = 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material was present in WTC2 prior to collapse. Of course, it is five times less [28k metric tons], if the iron oxide content is 50%. Still, it's a lot.
Hedegaard had earlier calculated, on his own, that at least 60 tons of thermite would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and on that basis he found it difficult to believe that controlled demolition had been used to level those two buildings.=== end quote from Dr. Harrit
+++ end quote from me
Did you miss the phrase that pays? "Still, it's a lot." And this is before we consider the amount unspent and overkill from its original pulverizing purposes to maintain the hot-spots. Obscenely massive over-kill amounts that aren't very Occam Razor in the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday before 9/11.
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a well-respected scientist, too. He has never written about 9/11 to my knowledge. But that doesn't mean that his decades of research into nuclear weapons don't apply to 9/11.
"De toon is exact dezelfde als die Van Sander knol"
Must apply to you only, because it is in your native language. "He who smelt it, dealt it."
At this point, you two agents (Mr. Scholten and Mr. Lugtenborg) should re-group and combine forces AND ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT NT PLACEMENT THAT WOULD RESULT IN THESE NIST ARTIFACTS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
The NIST video shows the half-smoked and wilted stub of a steel doobie (21:00) and the large box column bent smoothly into a C (1:27:00).
Your task was to speculate into the placement of NT that would result in those NIST artifacts.
Patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Presently, you two agents are on the fast track to IGNORING this relevant evidence. If you don't know what your opponent's arguments are because you refuse to read them, how can you even attempt to debunk them?
Only true trolls and agents would come to the table and try to argue from a strong-hold of ignorance.
Bravo for proving that Facebook is infiltrated with government agents, and that suppression of 9/11 truth is still alive and well.
//
x314 Maxwell C. Bridges : in the category of DEW
2019-11-13
Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices are in the category of DEW, and don't rely on "beams from space from Hurricanes" to power them.
Highly energetic neutrons ejected in a target fashion from (multiple) FGNW (in sequence and aimed away from the inner core spire) would pass right through all content instantly, but would leave some of that energy behind as heat.
Concrete and drywall have trapped water molecules. Imagine them all turning instantly into steam, whose expanding volumetric forces break them apart... into dust.
Such energy could volume heat instantly large steel girders into levels that made them pliable. Can you say "arcs, sags, steel doobies"?
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
//
x315 Jeff Rusin : cautious with the AE9/11 group
2019-11-13
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin Marcel Lugtenborg Hmmm, not sure why not a lot of mutual friends, but keep in mind, this has been a passion of mine well before even FB was around. I was in MANY heated discussions on MySpace!! I am also very leary of disinformation groups and individuals..."govt. shills", if you will....so I am cautious about befriending just anyone. I have run across more than 1 shills over the years...
I will admit I am cautious with the AE9/11 group, as they are unbending with only acknowledging conventional explosives/weaponry. I do believe there was indeed conventional explosives used in the towers, and esp. bldg. 7, but as I thoroughly explained in my previous post, that does not FULLY explain, not only the dustification of the towers, but also the disappearance of 80-95% of the mass of the towers. I don't believe nano thermite alone could do that....mini nukes..I don't believe that would either? And again, you still have all the other unexplained phenomena that took place near ground zero that even AE9/11 refuse to discuss. I am very open minded with attempting to look at ALL evidence available, and I have changed my mind more than once in the past 18 years as I was presented with new evidence.
The other BIG factor to keep in mind, is that it is not easy for a new researchers to have access to the evidence that I was privy to in the years immediately following 9/11. The available evidence was readily abundant, as the govt. was still trying to tap dance around all of us "truthers" that could easily sift through the data, and easily see where they were altering their story on the fly. For instance, try to find actual/real photos, or original witness testimony of the Pentagon attack. As soon as it happened, winess after witness reported seeing absolutely no plane wreckage ANYWHERE near the explosion, or ANY discernible plane parts on the lawn, or in the building. In the days following, the story changed multiple times about finding the black box and exactly where it was found. No plane parts, but out of no where they find a black box. If you Google now, you'll see big plane parts on the lawn, and witnesses saying they saw these bug parts on the lawn and inside the Pentagon. This WAS NOT what was seen or reported (including from CNN) on, or immediately after 9/11. The internet has/is being scrubbed of original info. I just tried to call out an obvious shill recently (he/she says its an inside job, but refuses to acknowledge no plane was at the Pentagon), and had to REALLY dig to find the original interviews and photos I remember. I do have an old computer with much saved info I may dig out. So a new researcher had to be very mindful of this, or the info you are getting may be indeed, disinformation....leading you to believe they are trying to expose the coverup, but steering the research away from where the ultimate truth lies. Agent provocateurs...
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin Maxwell BridgesBridgesMaxwell... interesting info, I will definitely check this out...
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin Maxwell Bridges.... so, could this weaponry, essentially, turn bldgs to dust? Completely eliminating most of the mass if the bldgs before reaching ground level?
x316 Marcel Lugtenborg : I labelled Maxwell as Troll
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
Jeff Rusin Ask Maxwell Bridges for names of scientists and evidence.. He is sidestepping.. No evidence / research on 9/11. I labelled Maxwell as Troll
x317 Maxwell C. Bridges : independent research and thought
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Jeff Rusin, FGNW could turn content that it targeted to dust. It didn't target the inner core that become a spire. It didn't target the outer steel wall assemblies, but they were hit or grazed. Examples are the steel doobies, arcs, sags, and many other things.
An earlier blog article of mine (with overlap to the article already posted.) It is noteworthy because I slaughter the NT sacred cow and the alleged substantiation that "repudiates" involvement of nukes.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
Here's are some suggestions. "SHIFT-ENTER" will allow you to put in line-breaks to aid readability without pre-mature publication to FB. Or you can write off-line (like I do) and then paste in later once an adequate response has been composed.
My blog is a rabbit hole. I in no way recommend reading it front-to-back, A-to-Z, such a repetitive bore it has become even for me. It started as a "best-of" of what I wrote for my hardly promoted website. But it later became something more.
P.S. Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg labels me a "troll" because he is incapable of independent research and thought. His only value-add is constantly re-posting things given to him by others that he doesn't understand and can't defend.
You are welcome to google the name "Dr. Andre Gsponer". He has never written anything about 9/11, but he sure as hell wrote for a decade or more about the direction nuclear weapons were taking (in three languages) and should have come up in both the research of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood.
Thus, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg's labeling me as a "troll" comes home to roost on his shoulder.
//
"Toon"-Sch…See More
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
youtube.com
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY,…
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
x318 Rik Scholten : Nist was tasked with explaining but failed miserably.
2019-11-13
Rik Scholten
Maxwell Bridges
"Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, seven (7) responses to my last lonely (1) comment, and not one of them explained how NT was positioned to account for just two (2) examples from the NIST video, as requested at least three times in this thread alone. "
I don't think it is up to me to explain.
I am not NIST. Nist was tasked with explaining but failed miserably.
And those who do not question this miserable failure are ignorant
"how NT was positioned to account for just two (2) examples"
I Don not understand this question
x319 Maxwell C. Bridges : your responsibility to explain how NT created those many wonderful artifacts
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, And now you demonstrate how you can argue out of both sides of your face, or with a "forked tongue" as the Native Americans used to say.
You are one of the two trolls promoting NT, so yes, it is your responsibility to explain how NT created those many wonderful artifacts given in the NIST videos (but I have graciously limited the initial discussion to just two examples out of 4 hours of videos.)
And if you don't have the smarts to take this on yourself with a reasoned, researched explanation, you should send this up the flag-pole to your superiors at AE9/11Truth to have them describe exactly how NT could have caused those artifacts.
No answer is an answer in and of itself, and is common for the 9/11 cover-up.
Indeed, one would think it was the responsibility of NIST to explain what is viewed in the videos. Is it a great surprise that they didn't? Is it a surprise that the videos were suppressed for years (if not a decade; I just ran across those two NIST videos this month myself)?
NIST didn't address what was observed. They also put out the shitty reports on the towers that stopped at the initiation of collapse, but addressed not a single anomaly observed in the remainder of the gravitational acceleration.
We agree that NIST failed miserably. But their failure doesn't have to be yours. The video has evidence that has to be explained even today by those who think they are "woke" and promoting "valid" 9/11 Truth.
I have an explanation already. On my blog, posted here a bunch of times already. In the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
You wrote that you didn't understand the question about NT placement to account for (just) two anomalies in the evidence NIST put on tape from the scrape yard.
Has some appearance of you assigning me busy work, because I've explained it several times already.
But I will indulge you.
In the video of my top-level comment that anchors this thread from NIST, there is at 21:00 a wilted stub of a steel doobie (formerly wall assembly) and at 1:27:00 a single steel box column of a wall assembly bent smoothly into the shape of a "C".
Where was the NT positioned on that exact floor of the WTC tower that would account for these?
You realize, that normally to bend a box column normally requires foundry conditions. My premise suggests that the heat left by the highly energetic neutrons did some volume heating instantly of the beam, instantly making it pliable.
I don't know what the NT premise suggests. Neither does anybody. Because the whole NT-cabal has consistently been ignoring whole reams of evidence, such as that collected by Dr. Wood. (Sure, debunk her for not connecting dots with anything that could be real-world powered, but rescue those nuggets of truth.)
//
x320 Jeff Rusin : Maxwell has very little on his FB page, and almost no friends
2019-11-13
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin Marcel Lugtenborg Marcel, I agree, Maxwell has very little on his FB page, and almost no friends, but I am interested in his info that attempts to explain what most in the conventional explosives camps refuse to touch. As I said, I am open minded. With all my research in to Dr. Stephen Jones, thermite/nano thermite, AE9/11, they all did a great job in showing the buildings DEFINITELY didn't collapse due to normal combustible fires (my area of expertise), but then stopped short of explaining how 90% of the buildings simply turned to dust and vanished. I will definitely check out the links you provided, as there may be new evidence from this camp than when I first began researching Jones...circa 2007-8-9.
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin Marcel Lugtenborg I study everything, no worries there. I am NOT locked into any one camp, nor should anyone since there isn't definitive proof...the govt. destroyed all evidence that could have proven one, or multiple facts to the crime. Gage is not admitting anything groundbreaking...if course we don't have all the necessary evidence...as I just described.
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin MarcelLugtenborgMarcel and MaxwellBridgesMaxwell....I think we all have to keep in mind (it appears Maxwell, you do agree with this) that if we are ONLY trying to explain 9/11 based on technology that is CURRENTLY known and acknowledged, we are only going so far. Remember and keep in mind, the military is YEARS beyond known/public technology, so completely dismissing technology that we think is only "theoretical", or still in design stage, is stopping your research with only going so far then hitting a dead end. Most will admit the military is 20-25 ahead of current/public technology...I know an industry/military insider that claims it can be closer to 100 years in a lit of cases. By acknowledging and understanding this, it forces you to not stay rigid in your view that it can ONLY be a known conventional type device that could possibly be used...just because that is all mainstream science knows. A conventional weapon could not have been used, LOGICALLY, because it could not appear to be a conventional collapse...the BS story was that a plane it, caused fires, and the steel weakened, and it collapsed on its own. Thats why it was top down...it couldnt appear to be a "normal" implosion. I have a theory on bldg. 7, and why that followed more of the look of a conventional implosion...
x321 Maxwell C. Bridges : legacy and consistency -- outside of FB
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Jeff Rusin, for the most part, I am in agreement with your last comment. All of the science-challenged yeomen of AE9/11Truth conveniently forget that Dr. Jones stated "NT was mixed with something with more brisance like RDX" (yet did no research into this, even when brought to his attention) and "something maintainted those hot-spots, not just NT" (yet didn't research what that something else was.)
To those who aren't science- or research-challenged, Dr. Jones can be faulted for many things. But his "nuke repudiation" paper is the cherry on top. It is as if he didn't research anything at all, because otherwise Dr. Andre Gsponer would have come up and his work into FGNW.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
You wrote to Marcel: "I agree, Maxwell has very little on his FB page, and almost no friends." I kind of agree, too, except that 201 Facebook friends isn't "almost no friends." And when you become really popular (with deviant topics), FB throttles your friend possibilities. [Greg Palast and his research into election frauds is a great example.] Good thing I have no aspirations of such.
But, Mr. Rusin, what I do have is legacy and consistency -- outside of FB.
I don't rely on FB to preserve my words. Hell, I can hardly find my words, if I don't make a note off-line where I posted it. [But I have no delusions that the FBI / CIA will be able to locate every comment I ever made at my trial.]
I demonstrate sincerity in my truth seeking and evolution in thought [with my blog / website.] I used to be a no-planer, but didn't rest on my laurels and eventually ran across the evidence / analysis that was sufficient to convince me to change my opinion. I used to be a champion of Dr. Wood and NT. Until my research took me further into FGNW that more accurately explains events.
Want to know why NT is promoted so heavily even though it clearly can't address all of the evidence? Because public revelation of a nuclear 9/11 can still have (figurative) nuclear fall-out today in institutions, agencies, and politics. It limits the pool of suspects to USA and Israel. Status quo would change mightily, in that every politician, every newscaster, every agency head or representative who ever played into the emotionalism of the "foreign 9/11 terrorists" would be, should be, ought to be ousted immediately.
//
x322 Rik Scholten : interchar 202
2019-11-13
Rik Scholten
Maxwell Bridges
Do you know by any chance wether interchar 202 was used when Bremer updated the fireproofing of his part of WTC 1 ?
x323 Maxwell C. Bridges : Explain how NT was positioned to account for anomalies from NIST video.
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, No, I do not know what was involved with the fireproofing of his WTC-1 office space.
Assume that it was. So what? That might explain molten metal dripping out before it came down. Still, so what?
It is still your assignment to explain how NT -- in whatever form -- caused the anomalies from the NIST video.
You make the case that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction. You defend it.
In the video of my top-level comment that anchors this thread from NIST, there is at 21:00 a wilted stub of a steel doobie (formerly wall assembly) and at 1:27:00 a single steel box column of a wall assembly bent smoothly into the shape of a "C".
Explain how NT was positioned to account for this shit.
//
x324 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bot-algorithms dodging the point
2019-11-13
Fail, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg! Your bot-algorithms have posted that same US5532449A plasma ARC three times in this thread already without a single explanation regarding how it could account for a wilted stub of a steel doobie (formerly wall assembly) at 21:00 in the NIST video or the single steel box column of a wall assembly bent smoothly into the shape of a "C" at at 1:27:00.
Dodging the point, I see.
Dr. David Griffin would be mighty upset with you for disregarding the third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
You're making the claim that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction, and then are caught spamming this thread when your ability to think rationally and reasonably comes up short.
NT comes up short, and you know it.
//
x325 Marcel Lugtenborg : NT produces HEAT
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges NT produces HEAT.. a lot of HEAT. And nanotech means the thermite can be tailored from incendiary to explosive
x326 Rik Scholten : 2.25 seconds of freefall
2019-11-13
Rik Scholten
Maxwell Bridges
I have aanmerking assignment for you:
Explain how 2.25 seconds of freefall could occur at the WTC 7 collaps.
x327 Maxwell C. Bridges : how long does NT produce HEAT?
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, how long does NT produce HEAT? Let me give you a clue. The duration of the heat is directly correlated to physical quantities of NT present. Once the NT is spent, the reaction stops and whatever was there begins to cool.
How much NT is required to maintain the under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months? In early October 2001 when Dr. Cahill first began to measure (late) air samples, the findings of metals indicated that a very high heat source was still present in order to continually generate such and be present in his air samples.
You promote NT; you defend it. Calculate quantities of NT. I'll let you simplify and assume just one hot-spot burning for one month. And remember, this amount is unspent and over-and-above the quantities required for the initial destruction and pulverization. [If you read my blog article, you might find where I already did the math & chemistry for you science-challenged wannabe-truthers.]
Mr. Lugtenborg, remember than when your thermite is tailored from incendiary to explosive, its burn-rate also increases, which means that (obscenely) MORE must be present to account for just one hot-spot. Not very Occam Razor, but it is your premise, so you defend it.
Oh, and before I forget. When thermite gets tailored from incendiary to explosive that transfers destructive energy through air, it becomes very loud. Dr. Shyan Sunder of NIST debunks this (legitimately) where he talks about how such blasts would be deafening. Hearing loss and deafness were not ailments of the survivors / first responders.
9/11 was an overkill operation, with back-up plans to the back-up plans. It also wasn't 100% successful. WTC-7 not going down in the morning could be pointed to as possibly one example.
My premise is that each tower had multiple FGNW at various levels aimed upwards. They were mounted to the inner core which later became known as the spire.
Nukes used in tandem can foul with each other if not mounted and aimed properly. I suspect that some devices did not reach their full nuclear potential and resulted in nuclear fizzle, which would have had no problems generating the metal measured in Dr. Cahill's air samples for weeks on end.
//
x328 Maxwell C. Bridges : "aanmerking assignment" in 199 words
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, Your "aanmerking assignment" (whatever the adjective means) reeks of busy work.
"Explain how 2.25 seconds of freefall could occur at the WTC 7 collaps."
It wasn't just (Stage 2) 2.25 seconds of freefall. It was uniform and symmetric across the entire length and breadth of WTC-7, and represents more than 100 feet or 8 stories.
And if we make the unfounded assumption that the mechanisms of destruction were the same for all buildings, that 8 stories of content would be a good indication of the main destructive range of the FGNW (and that the towers had devices every 10 stories or so.)
In the case of WTC-7 (WTC-6, WTC-5, WTC-4), several FGNW could be mounted near the corners and aimed upwards but tilted inwards in a fashion to miss the outer walls.
Ignition of the tandem devices, and instantly support structure steel is heated to foundry levels loosing strength.
If you look at the WTC-7 videos, it shows in the very early stage (before the 3 stages that NIST considers) that the penthouse suddenly falls through the roof line before Stage 1 and then Stage 2 which had the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.
// 199 words
x329 Marcel Lugtenborg : video of...
2019-11-13
Marcel Lugtenborg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI
x330 Maxwell C. Bridges : four to one, bot algorithms have gotten crossed
2019-11-13
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, 4-to-1, your comments to mine. Looks like spam, given that all four of your comments are the same thing. No words directing me to what is important? Fail.
Your bot algorithms have gotten crossed. You post that is if you were conversing with a champion of OCT and not a fellow 9/11 Truther who happens to be a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Controlled demolition for WTC-7 (and the other WTC buildings) isn't in contention.
We're just splitting hairs over the mechanisms involved with that controlled demolition. I don't think its demolition was loud enough to be conventional chemical explosives or NT, or in any combination of the two.
At any rate, nice attempt to distract the conversation and delay doing any thinking into the basic assignment put before you: how does NT explain wilted steel or beams in a "C" shape (just two examples).
The video does a good job of leading you astray. At 8:30, it talks about these tiny iron spheres that could only be created by high heat. Then it makes the leap to assume it was NT -- which was ONLY found in Dr. Jones' dust samples. Maybe we could let this pass, except that NT can't account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. It can barely (... I mean, "not at all") explain the pulverization of concrete.
NT isn't the only mechanism that can cause iron spheres.
You've been duped and refuse to admit it. Gives you headaches, don't it. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch, no?
"It is easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled."~Mark Twain.
Bottom-line, you need to send this up the flag-pole, because you two agents don't have the smarts or resources to defend NT, let alone see its deficiencies or that FGNW easily meets all requirements.
//
x331 Marcel Lugtenborg : Get a life you pathetic fuck
2019-11-14
Get a life you pathetic fuck
x332 Rik Scholten : words of mister Sunder are not convincing
2019-11-14
Maxwell Bridges
The words of mister Sunder are as convincing to me as the aforementioned three-dollar bill.
He has lost imho ALL credibility by representing this sorry ass excuse for an investigation
Rik Scholten
Rik Scholten Maxwell Bridges
There were 4 dust sample from very different Locations. They ALL had the same 5% of Iron microspheres and red gray chips.
There was an international team of scientists and one of the peerreree's was dr. David Griscom, a highly respected scientist with an impressive hirschindex.
We can trust their findings To be true
x333 Maxwell C. Bridges : duped defenders of NT have not done the math
2019-11-14
Dear Mr. Rik Scholton and Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, Let's do a recap. You two defenders of NT have not done the math to determine the quantities either to achieve pulverization or to maintain the under-rubble hot-spots, maybe because the latter represents an obscenely massive amount above-and-beyond and unspent from the former,... and that dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
You duped NTers still have not reviewed my work, otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid arguments that I have already debunked.
You duped NTers can't think out of the box and speculate on your own as to how this wonder-NT would have been positioned in the towers to achieve a wilted stub of a steel doobie (wall assembly) or a box column bent into a "C" shape, as but only two examples and shown in the NIST video. You're angry that you can't turn to AE9/11Truth for a "blinded-by-science" canned response, because they have reputation of ignoring evidence (like all of the images collected in Dr. Wood's book.)
Instead of doing this fundamental work necessary to convince a science-literate discussion participant, one of you duped NTers proclaims "get a life you pathetic fuck" while the other wants to put forth that a mere four (4) samples is somehow statistically significant.
Guess what? The sum total of all the samples (not just four ?!! el-oh-el) had the anomaly of 5% iron microspheres, and if memory serves me, it was the RJ Lee Group's sampling of the dust from lobby of the Deutsches Bank for insurance purposes who first exposed this factoid. The backward calculation of Dr. Harrit from the resulting iron spheres to alleged original quantities of NT was HUGE; he conveniently never considered any different mechanisms of destruction.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/millette-progress-report-on-the-analysis-of-red-gray-chips-in-wtc-dust-pdf.37907/
"Conclusion:The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
From the Introduction:
"MVA Scientific Consultants was requested by Mr. Chris Mohr of Classical Guide to scientifically study red/gray chips from WTC dust that matched those presented in a paper by Harrit et al., 2009, [1] which concluded that thermitic material was present in the WTC dust. Mr. Mohr was unable to gain access to any samples used in the Harrit study so four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants. These dust samples had been collected within a month of 11 September 2001 and sent to MVA for different projects."
Maybe we can say "sleight of hand" on the samples. But were MVA's samples switched or tainted, or were Dr. Harrit's (Dr. Jones')? Why weren't Dr. Harrit's samples made available?
This is all a circus distraction. The USGS analysis of far more dust samples that Dr. Harrit's also didn't register to have these chips, but they did measure Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities plain as day in its tables (but not its explanatory text).
And let's not forget the scope-limited tritium report that also suffered from sampling issue. Why the song-and-dance and attributing tritium in the run-off from WTC-6 to air plane exit signs of the aircraft that hit the towers? Then they try to say "weapons sights" were also in the mix. Alas, the great revelation from the FEMA photographer was that the vaults (money, drugs, guns) below WTC-6 were emptied before the 9/11 event.
Tritium is a fundamental building block of all FGNW.
With regards to the words of Dr. Sunder, not everything out of his mouth was a lie. In fact, he was absolutely correct that conventional chemical explosives (including anything mixed with NT) that use blast waves (sudden changes in air pressure) as part of their destructive yield would have been deafening loud. Dr. Sunder was able to say with a straight face and no lying ticks that explosives weren't used, because he knew no such chemical explosivers were used, because they were nuclear devices that coupled their energy to the target in a more direct manner. It was all about "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon.
//
x334 Marcel Lugtenborg : You are a timeconsuming pathetic troll.
2019-11-14
Maxwell Bridges . You are a timeconsuming pathetic troll. I asked you several times for evidence and everytime you are sidestepping.. Goodbye Maxwell.. How to recognize Zionist Trolls (a quick guide..)
Zionist Trolls never come up with real facts, only with accusations.
Zionist Trolls will try to degrade/demonize truthers
Zionist Trolls will vanish if you ask them for evidence..
Zionist Trolls try to keep you busy.. occupy your abilities to spread the Contra-Zionist truth.
Zionist Trolls will try to give fake evidence which consumes lots of time to check.. (and then appears as no evidence..)
Zionist Trolls will vanish/quit harrasment as soon as you accuse them of being a 'Zionist Troll' and publish a list of Zionist Collaborators from PNAC, NeoCons, Dual US-Israeli hardnose people like: Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Chalabi, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Condeleeza Rice, Paul Bremer, Lucky Larry Silverstein, Jeb Bush etc.
x335 Maxwell C. Bridges : All of your claims are unfounded.
2019-11-14
Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, This discussion is forthcoming under a your posting (a YouTube video of Jon Cole's "The Great Thermate Debate") and under my top-level comment for this thread that references a NIST FOIA WTC Steel Salvage Yards video.
In keeping with the subject that is clearly thermite and NT, you were asked (repeatedly) to speculate in a rational and reasoned manner how NT could account for (just) two pieces of evidence that I call "the wilted stub of a steel doobie" and a box column bent into a "C" shape from the NIST video.
Evidently, you are unable to explain such, or the other points about NT that make it entirely unsuitable for the observed destruction.
In a classic disinformationalist manuever, you try to turn the tables by stating "I asked you several times for evidence [of FGNW] and everytime you are sidestepping."
Au contraire, I provided the evidence, many times, but in a thread where it was appropriate. I've posted the links to two of my blog articles, that themselves have substantiating linked references, as well as a link to probably my most important reference, Dr. Gsponer's peer-reviewed FGNW article that was published in a reputable journal.
These? You have not read. In a brilliantly idiotic move, you bragged about not having read them. And now you offer up the blatant lie that I kept side-stepping the issue and never provided them.
Rather than doing any reading, any homework, or any thinking even on the subject near and dear to your heart called NT, you are quick to end this conversation in anger and with a slew of libel that tries to peg me as a "Zionist Troll".
Show me one shared posting from my FB wall that has me promote Zionism or Israel. You make the claim, you prove it, idiot. [Let's chalk this up as yet another lie.]
Seeing how you provided the keys for being a troll, let's see if they don't unlock your character (which thence would expose your whole posting as the classic disinformationalist attempt to pawn all of your weaknesses onto me.)
"Zionist Trolls never come up with real facts, only with accusations."
When you were asked how NT would be positioned to account for real evidence from the NIST video, you never came up with real facts, only with accusations (about me being a troll.)
"Zionist Trolls will try to degrade/demonize truthers"
I am a member of AE9/11Truth. My blog is nothing but my attempts at getting to 9/11 truth. In this thread alone, how many times have you called me a "troll", "zionist troll", "from the shitty trollfactory", or "a timeconsuming pathetic troll"?
"Zionist Trolls will vanish if you ask them for evidence..."
I haven't gone anywhere. More importantly, my blog (and website) were around ~way~ before you were, demonstrate my consistency in searching for truth, and aren't going to go anywhere. Clearly though with you "Goodbye Maxwell" comment, your intention is to torpedo this whole FB posting and all its comments, because you want me to vanish.
"Zionist Trolls try to keep you busy.. occupy your abilities to spread the Contra-Zionist truth."
You asked for references that substantiate my views, and then bragged about not reading them.
"Zionist Trolls will try to give fake evidence which consumes lots of time to check.. (and then appears as no evidence..)"
The "evidence" can't get any more fake than your non-attempts to calculate how much NT would be required for pulvization and for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. They can't get any more fake than your non-attempts to explain how NT could explain JUST TWO PIECES OF ANOMALOUS EVIDENCE from the NIST videos.
"Zionist Trolls will vanish/quit harrasment as soon as you accuse them of being a 'Zionist Troll' and publish a list of Zionist Collaborators from PNAC, NeoCons, Dual US-Israeli hardnose people like: Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Chalabi, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Condeleeza Rice, Paul Bremer, Lucky Larry Silverstein, Jeb Bush etc."
Q.E.D. I haven't vanished despite your completely unfounded accusations of me being a "Zionist Troll", despite the published list in the preceding paragraph of Zionist collaborators from PNAC et al. Therefore, according to your weak reasoning, I am not a "Zionist Troll" (but I and astute readers already knew that.)
All of your claims are unfounded.
You are factually a liar and an idiot, which I just proved, thereby making my assertions validated character assessment of you (as opposed to defamation). Your actions, not mine, more clearly resemble that of a troll, if not an agenda-toting bot, or worse.
And hey, the fact that you promote in a brain-dead manner NT that is a known limited hang-out, is right out of the playbook of a Zionist infiltrator, who will do anything to keep public revelation from 9/11 nuclear involvement which could/would/should bring Israel and Zionist into sharper focus as the only suspects with the means and crazy "deceit is war" motivation to carry out 9/11 and its after-wars.
//
x336 Jeff Rusin : conventional explosives (thermite - nano thermite, etc) narrative must be maintained
2019-11-15
https://www.facebook.com/marcel.lugtenborg/posts/3135456853136940?comment_id=3137125812970044
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin MaxwellBridges....I completely agree with your assertion that the conventional explosives (thermite - nano thermite, etc) narrative must be maintained (been saying this for years), because once you detour into the possibility of very high tech, top secret weaponry being used, the govt. takes out all possibilities of placing blame on foreign entities, and certainly not 19 goofball highjackers. Absolute worst case scenario is, the govt could admit that foreign entities somehow infiltrated the WTC site to plant explosives, but due to intelligence breakdowns (which has since been fixed...and the reason why the Patriot Act had to be fast tracked...), they could not stop them. If the evidence points to high tech weapons that highjackers or foreign countries have no access to,,,,well, it can only point to the US, and just a handful of other countries with that tech...all countries that have NOT been blamed for 9/11.
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin MaxwellBridgesMaxwell...I apologize about almost no friends...I misread your profile....I just quickly read "9 followers" and mistook that number for friends...
Jeff Rusin
Jeff Rusin Maxwell Bridges are we thinking that the poster is actually not just an individual, but another entity that uses "bot driven algorithms"?? If so, I've seen this behavior in other 9/11 FB pages, where I called them out as being a govt. shill....and they never responded...just kept repeating almost the same replies... never denied being a govt. shill, which I found very strange. If someone accused me of that, I would certainly have a personal reply...
x337 Marcel Lugtenborg : Waisting Time
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Jeff Rusin Waisting Time
x338 Jeff Rusin : not accusing you
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg I'm not accusing you! Just asking because of the similarities in what was described. As I've said before, I've been neck deep in the 9/11 world for 18 years...I know and remember the evidence from day 1. I'm seeing now, a lot of new 9/11 pages here popping up basing everything on current info out there...alot of this info is MUCH different than the facts and evidence that I saw on 9/11 as it was happening. The internet, Youtube, Google searches are DEFINITELY being scrubbed of the original evidence..this I know as I've been trying to find photos that I know for a fact where from the day of 9/11, and are now gone from search engines. I had to scroll through page after page of Google search to find anything remotely familiar with the original evidence!! So, yes...I am on "old timer", "old school" with researching 9/11 and WILL react when a new researcher thinks they have all the evidence needed based on a year of current research. I'm afraid it is becoming much harder to begin researching now, and be assured you have all the REAL evidence. Not accusing you of being a "shill", but unless you believe what I'm saying above...I will doubt your true intentions.
x339 Marcel Lugtenborg : asked Bridges several times to come up with evidence
2019-11-15
Jeff Rusin You still have access to my FB-page.. You can find everything you need. I asked Bridges several times to come up with evidence.. And the things he supplied is no evidence at all. Next thing is the evidence I supplied is denied. Well like I said. Please don't waiste my time. Bridges is blocked. You still have a chance to embrace to right side.
x340 Maxwell C. Bridges : a government agent with bot tendancies
2019-11-15
El-oh-el! Goodie, goodie, goodie! Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg outs himself as a government agent with bot tendancies.
Mr. Lugtenborg wrote: "I asked Bridges several times to come up with evidence."
Mr. Bridges responded to the exact same claim on another thread: "Au contraire, I provided the evidence, many times. [...] I've posted the links to two of my blog articles, that themselves have substantiating linked references, as well as a link to probably my most important reference, Dr. Gsponer's peer-reviewed FGNW article that was published in a reputable journal. [...] In a brilliantly idiotic move, [Lugtenborg] bragged about not having read them. And now [Lugtenborg] offers up the blatant lie that I kept side-stepping the issue and never provided them."
https://www.facebook.com/marcel.lugtenborg/posts/3135456853136940
That other thread starts with Mr. Lugtenborg's posting (a YouTube video of Jon Cole's "The Great Thermate Debate"), and my top-level comment (that has >63 responses) referenced a NIST FOIA WTC Steel Salvage Yards video. The subject of that thread was clearly thermite and NT. He was asked (repeatedly) to speculate in a rational and reasoned manner how NT could account for (just) two pieces of evidence that I call "the wilted stub of a steel doobie" and a box column bent into a "C" shape from the NIST video.
Not only did Lugtenborg fail that simple assignment, he now tries to turn the tables and suggest it was me.
The record begs to differ with Lugtenborg's assessment regarding who asked for what and who delivered. It isn't just a bot-repeat, but a repeat of what layman's venacular would call a "lie". I'm at odds on how to categorize it, because is it considered "one lie repeated" or simply "two lies" and in addition to the other lies ("Bridges is a Zionist troll")?
And if this sees the light of day here, then "Bridges is blocked" is added to his CV of balderdash.
In that thread and here, Lugtenborg is factually proven a liar and an idiot, thereby making such assertions now "validated character assessments" of Lugtenborg (as opposed to defamation.)
[But if I ~am~ actually blocked and this comment fails, it will only underscore how weak Lugtenborg's premise and character are; they can't stand up to rational debate; rational opponents must be blocked. Not to worry; my exchanges with Lugtenborg will eventually be re-purposed through my blogging efforts.]
//
x341 Maxwell C. Bridges : incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving
2019-11-15
Dear Mr. Jeff Rusin, Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside of their scope or of expounding in depth on premises within their scope.
LugtenBORG bragged about not reading my reference material, and then couldn't defend his own NT premise by explaining how it could account for anomalies in the NIST video.
A real person who was a sincere seeker of Truth would be able to say: "Those anomalies are some real fucked up shit, and I don't know how NT would have been positioned to explain them." They'd say: "Mr. Bridges re-arrangement of the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks into his FGNW does surprisingly have fewer gaps while addressing a wider swath of evidence, and my cognitive dissonance gives me headaches trying to grasp it."
LugtenBORG just keeps cycling on.
I don't know Dutch, but I am fluent in German. "Lugten" seems to be close to the German verb "Lugen" [to lie]. So LugtenBORG is an interesting almost self-fulfilling construct.
[Edited] Actually, in Dutch, "Lugten" means "to smell". So, "smelling like Borg" is also an interesting construct.
//
x342 Marcel Lugtenborg : pathetic troll is using you to take my time
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Sorry Jeff, but this pathetic troll is using you to take my time.. Goodbye Jeff..
x343 Penny Furman : so what is the problem?
2019-11-15
Penny Furman
Penny Furman Marcel Lugtenborg so what is the problem? You don't believe thermite was used in the downing of the buildings? What about the Israelis seen dancing in the streets with the buildings painted on their van or the students held up in the buildings for weeks? You a non believer in Mossad being a part of this? Or Larry Silverstein? Or the Bushes? Or Cheney?
x344 Maxwell C. Bridges : mistaken about Mr. Lugtenborg
2019-11-15
Dear Ms. Penny Furman, I regret to inform you that you are mistaken about Mr. Lugtenborg. He does indeed believe that Israelis were involved, and Bush, Cheney, Silverstein, etc. (So do I.)
The issue is that he also believes that thermite was used as the primary mechanisms of destruction in the downing of the buildings, in a very brain-dead way.
Unfortunately, I have presented analysis that proves that NT is a limited hang-out, incapable of producing the observed and recorded evidence. Moreover, the NT crowd of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been ignoring the evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components.
Mr. Lugtenborg is suffering from cognitive dissonance which is rooted in NT, and does not want his understanding nudged into rationally considering where NT doesn't address all the evidence, where NT can't go the distance, where NT is just plain wrong... It makes him and his beliefs wrong.
I'm not saying NT could not have been involved. I'm saying that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. And it has been quite the game these last 17 years or so to keep the circus distractions going, just as long as nuclear methods are not discussed.
In this thread alone, I've posted links to two of my blog postings that spell out what was wrong with NT, plus a huge piece of information that represents a gross omission from the nuclear research of Dr. Jones (Dr. Wood, et al) regarding fourth generation nukes.
Suppression of 9/11 truth is still alive and well, and the line they absolutely will not cross is acknowledging the many data points of nuclear involvement. (Tritium, tritium, tritium; tiny iron spheres; air samples a month later with metal particles indicating a high heat source capable of continually re-generating such.)
//
x345 Marcel Lugtenborg : never seen any evidence with names of scientist
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Again I see remarks about Nuclear devices being used for the demolition of WTC at 9/11. I have never seen any evidence with names of scientist who did research on this ..Nukes at WTC on 9/11. Would you be so kind to show me a one page (or 2 pages) like the evidence of NT being used. The front page I provided here..(Names of academic,, scientists..) and the whole document (Bentham Open pdf) is also attached to it.. Show me similar in simple overview of Nuke WTC 9/11. Thank you
x346 Maxwell C. Bridges : an awesome execution of the tactics of disinformation
2019-11-15
Bravo, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, for such an awesome execution of the tactics of disinformation! I particularly enjoyed the "bait-and-switch", whereby you mention "Nukes at the WTC on 9/11" and then post a screen-shot of an article about nano-thermite. Woo-hoo!!!
And the red-herring was also enjoyable, as you wrote: "I have never seen any evidence with names of scientist who did research on this ."
Did you ever think about why that is? Have you never heard of "non-disclosure agreements?" When you work in the nuclear field, charges of treason have stiff penalties including execution.
But given that I posted a peer-reviewed article from Dr. Andre Gsponer on the subject of fourth generation nuclear devices in another thread of this same posting, your statement -- "I have never seen any evidence with names of scientist who did research on this" -- rings of deceit & lies as well as purposeful ignorance. You still haven't read it.
True to disinformationalist form, you then try to assign me busy work that I know you will never read. How can I make such a claim and be so certain of your (non) actions? Because the links to my blog articles posted in earlier discussions proves that I have already done that homework, made and defended the claim, etc. If you had read the works, the discussion would be advanced and you'd be asking different questions. Clearly, if you haven't read those works, you have no intention of reading what I post here.
If Mr. Lugtenborg were sincere -- not agenda-toting, not a bot --, long ago he would have bookmarked my links and found the time to read or skim those works and possibly come up with some constructive feedback. If the works are completely wrong, I would most certainly like to hear about it, because I am sincere and will change my mind when presented new evidence or improved analysis. OCD-me, those pesky nuggets of truth must be rescued even if my neu nukie-DEW hobby-horse gets shot out from underneath me!
But go there? The likes of Mr. Lugtenborg do not. Limited by his algorithms and agenda-to-tote. Shallow the discussion.
//
x347 Marcel Lugtenborg : I only ask for Names of Scientist
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Again no evidence... ??? I only ask for Names of Scientist who did research on WTC collapse on 9/11 .. The Nanothermite page I provided names the scientists and it is scientific research on WTC on 9/11 on nanothermite.. You are a smearing deception troll..
x348 Maxwell C. Bridges : appeals to authority (PhD's) while continuing with the bait-and-switch gambit
2019-11-15
Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, again in a deceitful way, you make your appeals to authority (PhD's) while continuing with the bait-and-switch gambit. This discussion is about nuclear involvement, not NT.
You were given the name of Dr. Andre Gsponer and his PhD'ed co-authors and co-workers before. This would then be the start of the second spin on that disinformationalist carousel ride, or second pass of the credential loop.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
You do not have to be a PhD to research, to connect dots, to understand.
I do not have a PhD, but I did the research from the library of my institution of higher education. I wrote up the homework. I made the results available, for constructive criticism, "no less."
While it is true that I did not write the article linked and that those authors *never* wrote about 9/11 to my knowledge, they did write about Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices in the decade leading up to 2001.
Use your imagination and see if some late-third or early-fourth generation nuclear devices could more accurately account for the exuberance of energy on display in the WTC destruction, the thoroughness, yet also the accuracy.
Only a disinformationalist would insist on a lesser answer A, but the bigger solution B is staring them in the face.
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
x349 Marcel Lugtenborg : ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
x350 Maxwell C. Bridges : read the Cornell University article from Dr. Andre Gsponer
2019-11-15
Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, while waiting for me to perform your busy work assignment of "ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11," kindly make efficient use of your time by reading the Cornell University article from Dr. Andre Gsponer entitled "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects."
Read it.
No excuses.
Chop, chop.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
And if you make any comment (a) not related to Dr. Andre Gsponer's work or (b) before I come back with the results of your busy-work assignment, in the eyes of lurker readers you lose points for the distraction from the nuclear subject.
In those same eyes, you risk utterly failing due to demonstration of the insincerity of your persona in your unwillingness to read and explore your opponent's substantiating material.
//
x351 Marcel Lugtenborg : timeconsuming, deceiving, distracting
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges You are just timeconsuming, deceiving, distracting.. You don't provide evidence of nuclear devices used on 9/11. No names of scientists who did research. You are a deception zionist troll. I give you an example of NAMES of SCIENTISTS who did research on WTC on 911. The arrow points to the NAMES of the SCIENTISTS who did research NANOTHERMITE on 9/11
x352 Maxwell C. Bridges : not debating in good faith
2019-11-15
Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, Again with the bait-and-switch! This discussion is about FGNW, not nano-thermite.
You gave me the assignment of providing ... something ... but before I can even begin my research and certainly before you read the 55 page PDF file from Dr. Gsponer that defines FGNW, you immediately hammer me on the same topic of PhD credentials for nuclear involvement AGAIN!
You are not debating in good faith.
You are playing games, as would be expected from a disinfo troll.
I dare you to follow the link into the PDF file, to copy Dr. Gsponer's abstract, and to paste it into your next comment, to verify in the least your sincerity in researching and discussing topics in a fair manner.
Chop, chop!
Meanwhile, you gave me my assignment but are distracting me from fulfilling those duties. Don't do that again, or I'll call a penalty on the play, bucko.
//
x353 Marcel Lugtenborg : No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
x354 Maxwell C. Bridges : inability to deep-dive flag your ass as a bot
2019-11-15
That's a penalty, Mr. "Smells-like-Borg"! You are not allowed to make repeated demands for the same assignment or to lie that the busy assignment wasn't carried out when the assignment was literally just given within the same hour and insufficient reasonable real-life time has elapsed to complete it.
In the hour since your initial challenge, you have demanded instantaneous results from me three times -- carries its own penalties for distracting me from the assignment you assigned. Further, at the same time you have blatantly not acted on the reciprical assignment of you reading a silly little 55-page peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. [What makes you incapable of copying its Abstract and posting it in your next comment?]
More and more proof that you are not debating in good faith.
And at every turn comment, you insert completely irrelevant comments or links to NT, when the subject of this thread should be FGNW.
My bet is that the inability already mentioned is going to flag your ass as a bot.
//
x355 Marcel Lugtenborg : (Troll) Give me ONE page
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Still no evidence...Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong wit
x356 Maxwell C. Bridges : another three penalties
2019-11-15
That's another three penalties, Mr. Lugtenborg. First penalty is badgering your debate opponent for completion of an assignment that you assigned him while still within the reasonable work window.
If you don't allow sufficient time for the work to be completed, then you were never sincere in asking for it, and certainly won't review it.
While there was down-time as I worked your assignment, you were expected to read the Dr. Andre Gsponer article published in the peer-reviewed Cornell University website so that it could be rationally discussed under your 9/11 nuke thread (not "9/11 NT thread").
As a good faith gesture that you were a real human being and not some bot, your were asked to follow the link to Dr. Gsponer's PDF article, copy the abstract from the PDF file, and paste that into your next comment (now two comments ago).
If you were a human, you seem to be failing this simple objectivity test of being able to study your opponent's position.
That you're a bot, I'm not surprised that you continue to fail, and continue to spew shallow and repetitive things, like "fake smearing zionist deception troll."
You taunt: "Prove me wrong wit."
Penalty. You are proving you have no intention of considering anything that could prove you wrong. Glad that we've finally identified you as a bot with its responses stuck in a loop.
//
x357 Marcel Lugtenborg : One single scientist
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges One single scientist.. is a bribed scientist.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
x358 Maxwell C. Bridges : forfeits this discussion and his credibility
2019-11-15
Awe, too bad! Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg forfeits this discussion and his credibility!!!
[x] Badging the discussion opponent with the same assignment.
[x] Purposely allowing insufficient time for the assignment to be completed.
[x] Spamming the same thread multiple times with the same NT articles.
[x] Spamming the same thread multiple times with unrelated NT articles, because the discussion is nuclear means.
[x] Not tit-for-tat taking the assignment from his discussion oppoent in a serious manner.
Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg is not participating in a sincere, objective, or fair manner, and is not putting out a good faith effort.
As such, Mr. Maxwell Bridges is no longer under obligation to complete the said assignment, because Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg assigned it in bad faith with no intention on reviewing it.
Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg might not even be human.
//
x359 Marcel Lugtenborg : Wow you really need therapy
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Wow you really need therapy.. Seems to me you just see 9/11 as a moneymaker to promote your deceptions.. You never, ever can prove any evidence.. fake sick troll.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
x360 Maxwell C. Bridges : a hostile research environment
2019-11-15
Dearest Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, do you base your assessment of my alleged needed therapy from your ~own~ experience already being ~in~ therapy and how it helps you turn off your mind from objective thinking?
When the clock is set unreasonably short from the get-go, and when the work is constantly interrupted by a hovering micro-managing bot, then a hostile environment is created that undermines the sincerity of the assignment and whether its results will be fairly and objectively considered. Beep, beep. Disinformation tactic exposed. FAIL. No reason to go further in the work. Points against Mr. Lugtenborg.
Mr. Lugtenborg thought that he caught me in a trap, because indeed when we're talking NDA's that have charges of treason listed as a penalty, it is difficult to come up with the names of scientists who have done research into FGNW and/or done anything publicity-wise to let the public know. They know which side their bread is buttered on, who pays their bills, who gives their research funding.
If the last 20 years didn't prove anything else, whistleblowers are not treated well, and that desired list of scientist would not be fairing well.
Worse for you, is that an even larger list of scientists (in the nuclear field) have not spoken out against Dr. Andre Gsponer's work.
Or if the lists of nuclear scientists are so easy to come by (according to you), the onus is on you to provide the list of scientists who have debunked or discredited Dr. Andre Gsponer's work.
Meanwhile, how does the following quote relate to Mr. Lugtenborg?
+++ Quote
The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.
+++ End Quote
Where did the quote come from?
//
x361 Marcel Lugtenborg : Get therapy
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
No doubt about you. Get therapy.. or look in the mirror and vomit, You zionist smearing deception troll Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
x362 Maxwell C. Bridges : could not identify who made the quote or where it came from
2019-11-15
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg spammed this thread seven times with the same meme, badgered a discussion participant with copy-and-pasted assignments that he is now proven to have assigned in bad faith.
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg could not identify who made the quote or where it came from.
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg has repeated called Mr. Bridges "a fake smearing zionist deception troll" without a single piece of evidence (quote, link, meme) to prove his charge.
The word "zionist" in particular is easily proven by my facebook wall to be patently false, which in turn make Mr. Lugtenborg's statement into libel.
And the other fingers of his pointing hand point back to Mr. Lugtenborg as being exactly what his namesake suggests: "smells-like-borg" (bot).
//
x363 Maxwell C. Bridges : human-ness of the agent
2019-11-15
Let us prove the human-ness of the agent known as "Marcel Lugtenborg". If he is not a bot (and not an agent), his task is simple:
1) Follow the link.
2) Open the associated PDF.
3) Copy the abstract.
4) Paste it into his replying comment.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
x364 Marcel Lugtenborg : (Troll) Give me ONE page
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Pathetic.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
x365 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. "smells-like-bot" (borg)
2019-11-15
Ohhhh, Snap! Fail! Fall on your face! Face-plant! Ooooo, it don't look good for you, Mr. "smells-like-bot" (borg)!
Specifically, how does the following quote relate to Mr. Lugtenborg?
+++ Quote
The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.
+++ End Quote
Where did the quote come from?
Trick question for the bot known as "Marcel Lugtenborg", and for that reason, he won't get it.
//
x366 Marcel Lugtenborg : Pathetic Idiot
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Pathetic Idiot.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this
x367 Maxwell C. Bridges : assignments assigned in bad faith
2019-11-15
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg badgered a discussion participant with copy-and-pasted assignments that he is now proven to have assigned in bad faith.
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg could not identify who made the quote or where it came from.
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg continues to distract with an NT meme with this thread was clearly about FGNW.
And the other fingers of his pointing hand point back to Mr. Lugtenborg as being exactly what his namesake suggests: "smells-like-borg" (bot).
//
x368 Marcel Lugtenborg : you desperately need a therapist
2019-11-15
Marcel Lugtenborg
Maxwell Bridges Let the record show that you desperately need a therapist. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
x369 Maxwell C. Bridges : prove whether or not you were a human and genuine
2019-11-15
Dearest Mr. Lugtenborg, the purpose of this thread was to prove whether or not you were a human and genuine. The test was for you to copy and paste a paragraph from an easy-to-get-to location. The test continued with you being asked who made a certain quote and where it came from.
And you failed spectacularly!
It wasn't even a trick when I reveal that the quotation itself was the simple human-verus-bot assignment of what you needed to copy.
The lame insults? The repeated copy-and-pasted assignment "Give me ONE page that nuclear devices were used..."?
What is even funnier in exposing this bot -- with whom I tire of playing with -- is that I've already posted multiple times "TWO (web) pages" that connect the dots and provide such evidence from sources already public. Like the Dr. Andre Gsponer PDF, the bot known as "smells-like-borg" doesn't understand that these web pages already accomplished what he allegedly desired. (He doesn't desire it, though. His agenda is fixed. His mind is blocked. Cognitive dissonance is giving him NT headaches.)
It is well that you don't FB friend me, Mr. Lugtenborg. I tire of your insincere participation. I don't have the CPU cycles to loop through your repetitive, boring, and incorrect reasoning. Don't cancel your weekly therapy meetings.
You fail. Like an elephant, (my blog) will remember this exchange. When I get around to publishing it and if we encounter each other again in FB 9/11 discussions, I'll use its URL to avoid more cycles on your carousel.
I've got legacy, and you don't.
But hey, I'm done here. Slap some more spam into this thread to show you are legitimately bot. You can have the last word. It'll probably only underscore my findings.
//
Chapter 10: FGNW Discussions with Nigel Beckwith
A different 9/11 yeoman poorly defending NT.
x371 XTC : Making Plans for Nigel
1979-09-07
XTC "Making Plans for Nigel"
https://youtu.be/mfsYSPCNWCw
We're only making plans for Nigel We only want what's best for him We're only making plans for Nigel Nigel just needs that helping hand And if young Nigel says he's happy He must be happy He must be happy He must be happy in his work We're only making plans for Nigel He has his future in a British steel We're only making plans for Nigel Nigel's whole future is as good as sealed, yeah And if young Nigel says he's happy He must be happy He must be happy He must be happy in his work Nigel is not outspoken But he likes to speak And loves to be spoken to (in his world) Nigel is happy in his work (in his world) Nigel is happy in his work (in his world) We're only making plans for Nigel We only want what's best for him We're only making plans for Nigel Nigel just needs this helping hand And if young Nigel says he's happy He must be happy He must be happy He must be happy in his work We're only making plans for Nigel We only want what's best for him We're only making plans for Nigel Nigel just needs this helping hand We're only making plans for Nigel He has his future in a British steel Steel, steel, steel, steel, steel, yeah yeah We're only making plans for Nigel Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel
x372 Maxwell C. Bridges : so stilted that even I agree
2019-11-22
Dr. Gsponer's work that even Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth did not explore in their lame FAQ #15, whose "nuclear blast" framing is so stilted, that even I agree with the conclusions. But that doesn't mean that FAQ #15 debunked nuclear involvement. Quite the contrary. Their lame and half-assed efforts prove (a) suppression of 9/11 nuclear involvement is still alive and well and (b) the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth group was not immune from infiltration and steering.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
arxiv.org
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral…
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
x373 Maxwell C. Bridges : giant omission of Dr. Jones
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, you haven't read the above peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal from Cornell University.
But you should consider this a giant omission of Dr. Jones (and Dr. Wood).
//
x374 Nigel Beckwith : paper discusses 4th generation nuclear weapons....not 9/11
2019-11-22
Nigel Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges you are not even aware of what Jones and the 9/11 team are actually saying.
Nigel Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges that paper discusses 4th generation nuclear weapons....not 9/11 or how they might be employed in building demolition. Ffs.
Nigel Beckwith
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
Nigel Beckwith
Occam's razor.
x375 Maxwell C. Bridges : Point is, FGNW are valid
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, agreed: the paper discusses FGNW. It does not discuss 9/11. So the fuck what?
Point is, FGNW are valid.
So why haven't the leaders of AE9/11Truth applied this technology to the evidence of 9/11?
Because they are part of the cover-up.
The links to my blog bridge the concepts from the above paper to 9/11. You still haven't read them.
//
x376 Maxwell C. Bridges : they have gaps and weaknesses
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, if you would but study these references that you post and think for yourself, you'd see where they have gaps and weaknesses, and for the reasons of Occam's razor, can't be considered the primary mechanisms of destruction.
Here is something from several years ago, but my take-down and debunking of "NT as the primary mechanism of destruction" remains valid.
Rather than bore you with a copy-and-paste into this discussion, you can just go off and read it alone and then come back with rebuttals or agreements that takes the discussion forward from that point.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x377 Nigel Beckwith : Nano thermite was one element of the process of demolition
2019-11-22
Nigel Beckwith
Nano thermite was one element of the process of demolition. There was conventional explosives used too. If one is seeking to make a case by misrepresenting the case that has already been made then I am not sure how that helps.
Where is the supporting evidence for 4th generation nuclear devices? Are they in use already? Cheaper to use? Easier to deploy? Anything in the rubble/ dust to support their presence? Any signs in the explosions that took place in the buildings that day that demand unconventional devices?
x378 Maxwell C. Bridges : your speed reading ability
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, I commend you on your speed reading ability in absorbing that entire article in under 5 minutes. But for shame, for shame, that you didn't address a single issue brought up against NT.
I suggest you go try again before your participation gets pegged as an agent or bot with agendas to plug.
I'm several steps ahead of you, but being a fair and generous fellow, I'll await your objective review and intelligent comments.
//
x379 Nigel Beckwith : when I see the proof of process of intelligent rational construction of an argument
2019-11-22
Nigel Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges You are missing the point. NT was only part of the process. So its a null and void hypothesis. I will save myself the effort as a quick scan revealed immediate weakness in the argument. Don't complain, get better and refrain from claiming superiority. I will decide when I see the proof of process of intelligent rational construction of an argument. Until then I will approach it in the way that suits me.
x380 Maxwell C. Bridges : not reading your debate opponent's substantiating work?
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, but not reading your debate opponent's substantiating work? I don't have to claim superiority, because such willfully ignorant debating practices makes you inferior, and me disappointed that I'm not conversing with an equal.
//
x381 Nigel Beckwith : The very basis of your "thesis" is flawed
2019-11-22
Nigel Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges Ha ha ha...how amusing. The very basis of your "thesis" is flawed as you have claimed a straw man in A&E for 9/11 truth and now me. Look up logical fallacy and learn how to construct a proper argument please.
Nigel Beckwith
So far the lesser "equal" is not me.
x382 Maxwell C. Bridges : *Snap of the fingers* Your hypnotic suggestion has no power.
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, thank you for coming over here to resume the discussion. But come on? Two comments to my one? Next time, use "SHIFT ENTER" within a comment and delay your gratification of posting it until your thoughts are complete. Two or more comments in a row when not dictated by comment length, embedded memes, or highlighted links comes across as spam.
*Snap of the fingers* Your hypnotic suggestion has no power.
If you're going to make the claim that the very basis of my premise is flawed, then the onus is on you to prove it.
Section-by-section.
Please. Identify the errors in my work. I'll wait while you first read it.
//
x383 Nigel Beckwith : a fundamental assumption
2019-11-22
Nigel Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges You have made a fundamental assumption, namely that NT is the only material used to demolish the buildings. That is not what was being said. Hence to attack an argument based on ignoring one aspect and highlighting another is what is called a straw man argument.
Nigel Beckwith
Unless there is no way that these buildings could be taken down by more conventional means, then conventional means will suffice.
Nigel Beckwith
To use Judy Wood's silly assertions and inventions and seek to include them to make a case is not helpful either.
Nigel Beckwith
I can accept that there are different forms of explosives...but look at any number of controlled demolitions, study them, and they all come down like all 3 buildings did on 9/11, The explosions, the puffs of smoke in non random order etc etc. The only thing that looks different is the streams of molten metal....which is an indicator of thermite use in some specific way.
x384 Maxwell C. Bridges : no research into what those other "materials / mechanisms" would be
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, In acknowledging that NT was not the only "material" (I prefer "mechanism") used to demolish the WTC complex exposes a major flaw of NT champions: namely, no research into what those other "materials / mechanisms" would be. Omission is such a great disinformation technique, and you fell for it.
Why was there no further research? If you would have read Section 3 in the above article, you'd learn that chemical explosives added to NT to achieve the brisance of the observed pulverization, (a) increases the loudness of the destruction and (b) exasperates the ability of this NT-mixture ever being able to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without obscenely massive (and not very Occam Razar) quantities of this NT-mixture that was UNSPENT and OVER-AND-ABOVE the already huge quantities needed for pulverization.
I see four comments to my one. There is no need to shoot from the hip and spam my thread. SHIFT-ENTER goes a long way to allowing more than one thought into a comment.
You wrote: "Unless there is no way that these buildings could be taken down by more conventional means, then conventional means will suffice."
Such logical rubbish. That same band XTC used to sing about "generals and majors", and I relate that to this discussion by saying that there were generals and majors who were literally dying to use the exotic nuclear weapons in the MIL arsenals that they had full access to. So to limit the discussion to a mechanism that can't even explain all of the evidence -- like section 7 "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies." -- isn't just wrong, it is deceitful.
You wrote: "To use Judy Wood's silly assertions and inventions and seek to include them to make a case is not helpful either."
I am not a champion of Woodsian DEW, and in fact, I debunk her work in a rational and objective way, which is more than we can say for AE9/11Truth.
Just because she doesn't connect dots, draws no conclusions, and did really shitty research into nuclear weapons, doesn't mean that she didn't collect lots of pieces of evidence and nuggets of truth that have to be addressed.
The puffs of smoke observed preceding the destructive wave. A tell is that they weren't symmetric and coming out on other sides at the same level at the same time. Why?
The FGNW premise states that this was the conventional charge needed to start the first fission phase, which in turn created the heat necessary for the fusion phase, which in turn like a neutron bomb released its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (cone-shape) upwards purposely missing the inner core and grazing the outer wall assemblies at levels above the nuclear ignition point.
The molten metal in early phases before the tower's fall? No skin off the nose of FGNW if maybe NT is used to account for that. But NT could not have pulverized the concrete, accounted for all of the tiny iron spheres, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, or that metals were measured in air samples all through Oct/Nov which indicated a very hot-heat source still was present to generate them.
At any rate, in case you missed it, your assignment is Section 7 "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies". You must explain simply how NT-mixture was positioned in the towers to account for these anomalies. [Yes, Dr. Wood is the one who originally collected these images, but please consider that me "rescuing nuggets of truth" and ~not~ me championing Woodsian DEW.}
//
x385 Nigel Beckwith : taken in by nothing you silly man
2019-11-22
Nigel Beckwith
Good god. You really have a problem pal. I have been taken in by nothing you silly man. NT is a material. The way it was employed is the method (weaken beams for the effective use of explosives prior to the explosive sequence). Now it appears to me that you have ignored that in making a case that only NT was used, so that you can then pull the theory to pieces. But you have erred see. We call that a straw man argument and sadly that is not what was or is being claimed was the entire process. So you have fundamentally erred here. If that is not clear I cannot help you anymore. I cannot put it any simpler.
Nigel Beckwith
Explosives pulverise concrete. Good god. Seems that you did not read much of Jenkins site or A&E for 9/11. Unrepentant personality type too. Oh dear.
x386 Maxwell C. Bridges : You've been duped by NT.
2019-11-22
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, if you can't identify what else NT was used with, then your theory has holes. The hole gets bigger when you consider that this gap was known and wasn't addressed in the NT research. What was that material used with NT?
Yes, you missed it. Your assignment is Section 7 "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies". You must explain simply how NT-mixture was positioned in the towers to account for these anomalies.
"Good god" is right, Mr. Beckwith, you really have a problem pal in being unable to use SHIFT-ENTER in your reply, as you continue to spam this thread with more multiple comments in a row when they all could have been one.
Want to know what happens when you use explosives to pulverize concrete? The medium of destruction is air -- sudden changes in air pressure -- and is VERY FUCKING LOUD. Deafness and loss of hearing were not ailments of survivors and first responders. [Dr. Shyam Sunder may have been a disinfo agent, but his assessment of the loudness of the destruction had conventional means been deployed was correct.]
Because you are demonstrating that you still haven't scanned my work, let me give you a hint. FGNW don't use the medium of air to act on targets. The highly energetic neutrons pass through all material, leaving energy in the form of heat behind. Trap water molecules inside concrete instantly turning into steam wouldn't necessarily be loud when the steam's expanding volume pressure makes lots of tiny breaks in the concrete and giving us dustification.
I most certainly did read Dr. Jenkins. He tries to suggest that the dust was somehow conductive which then resulted in the car fires along West Broadway and the car park. (Getting the "condustive dust" to go between the two battery terminals under the hood to create something that would ignite.) Although 80% of the FGNW's energy is in the highly energetic neutrons, 20% is still present in a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP. The EMP line-of-sight, through window slits, could create the observed vehicle fires via the Eddy currents EMP would created in the metals hit.
You've been duped by NT.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been fooled."~Mark Twain
Don't get personal with me. It is your cognitive dissonance for the NT that you've been duped by that gives you headaches when the proof of the errors of NT are presented to you. It isn't me personally; it is you.
Section 7. When you come up short as to how NT explains the steel doobies, maybe you'll see how you've been fooled.
//
x387 Maxwell C. Bridges : NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards
2019-11-24
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2398907623703745
2019-11-22
Here's part 2. Lots of great evidence of 9/11 destruction that NT cannot explain. [28.51]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE...…See More
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
youtube.com
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
x388 Maxwell C. Bridges : that steel doobie was smoked to a stub and wilted at one end
2019-11-24
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, the above video is cued up on not just another example of a "steel doobie", but that doobie was smoked to a stub and wilted at one end.
Please help my ignorance and explain how NT (in whatever mixture with conventional explosives) was positioned in the towers to achieve that.
//
x389 Nigel Beckwith : what the A&E for 9/11 is saying
2019-11-24
Nigel Beckwith
You seem to not know what the A&E for 9/11 is saying.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features
Explosive Features | Twin Towers
ae911truth.org
Explosive Features | Twin Towers
Explosive Features | Twin Towers
Nigel Beckwith
And you explain to me how the f ck nuclear weapons/ explosives were placed in the buildings?????
x390 Maxwell C. Bridges : both your objectivity and sincerity are on the line
2019-11-24
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, My homework has been completed and available for grading for quite some time. Your lame attempt to assign me busy work -- "explain to me how nuclear weapons were placed in the building" -- falls flat and exposes one or more of your character flaws, with the most glaring one being an inability to read. Let's remove this blatant failing in your future discourse.
Allow me to call your attention to section 3, "Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11" of the following.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
Given the earlier link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article in a reputable science journal that Dr. Jones, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Wood, et al and YOU also failed to read, and the NIST videos that you failed to watch with an eye for how NT could explain the evidence, both your objectivity and sincerity are on the line.
But, ho-hum. I'll play along.
6-12 FGNW would have been mounted on alternative sides of what became "the spire" (inner core remnants that remained standing for a few moments after the other content including outer wall assemblies were removed) and about 10-15 floors apart. [If we make the assumption that several were used in each WTC-4, WTC-5, and particularly WTC-6 that cratered out the building but left the vaults underneath in good enough condition for FEMA photographers to determine they were emptied before the destruction, we could see the range is easily 9 floors.] Thus, mounted about every 10-15 floors in the WTC towers actually would account for the "boom-boom-boom" cadence mentioned by first responders. They were aimed upwards and the highly energetic neutrons were emitted in a cone shape. They would not have hit the wall assemblies on the floors where they were mounted, but they would graze such assemblies above them.
I've already explained how the concrete and other content with residual water were destroyed, simply by the massive amounts of extra heat dropped directly into the molecular structure of the content turning the water molecules into steam whose expanding volume pressure broke locally connections that held content together at a micro-level. This feature of destruction would not have been necessarily loud; it wasn't changes in air pressure that pulverized the concrete.
As for the "steel doobies"? When the highly energetic neutrons hit these wall assemblies, the deposited heat made pliable the spandrel sheets that connected the hollow box columns together. Outward forces, like from concrete blowing itself apart, cause the pliable wall assemblies to roll themselves into what I called "steel doobies". The pile had many of these, but the one I pointed out was smoked to a stub, and had wilting at one end.
Then there were other examples of the hollow box columns coming apart at its welds, or exhibited large smooth arcs over their length, which normally would only be possible with the help of a blast furnace and a significant number of minutes within (not instantaneous end-to-end volume heating as observed.)
There was one box column from the NIST video that had a gash in one face going its entire length and through the spandrel sections, and the gash was bent in. Again, if the face was heated to be pliable, then something could cut it like a hot knife in cold butter.
You watch those videos and note the many occurrences of "wavey" steel, some from the faces of box columns in the wall assemblies.
I show how FGNW explains them (and account for lots of other AE9/11truth ignored pieces of evidence).
Now it is your turn. Please tell me where NT was placed to account for a steel doobie.
Sure, I could possibly see NT taking out the connecting bolts, but how could the localized heat from that NT chemical reaction weaken the spandrels? How could that localized heat undo the welds of the hollow box column at perpendicular distances from where the NT was placed? How could NT at those bolts heat the face of a box column to the point where something else could cut a gash into it?
You go back. Do your homework. Watch those videos with two questions in mind. (1) How could NT account for this? And (2) how could FGNW account for this?
I'm fine with limiting your analysis to just one piece of evidence, like the steel doobies or arcs, because I'm confident that the conclusions will be the same: "NT can't explain it; FGNW can."
I'm in no hurry. If you are as objective as you claim, what with you already being woke as evident by your membership in the 9/11 Truth Movement, then studying the evidence and asking those questions to get to Truth is a necessity to the very fiber of your being.
I had originally written above "... asking those questions to get to Truth isn't going to hurt", but it is. Sorry. Given your NT cognitive dissonance. It'll give you headaches and make you angry: you were fooled by those with PhD's you trusted, and you were the duped useful idiot spreading around the disinformation which left the primary mechanism of destruction out-of-mind while promoting a minority-role mechanism which can't explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (among other things).
I'll wait.
In fact, to avoid more dings to your character, I recommend that you not respond to anything until you've had a chance to do your homework. You don't have to watch all four hours; just watch what I've cued up or identified at time stamps, because you'll come to the same conclusions.
... And then, you might owe me an apology that I was (more) right and you were (much more) wrong.
//
x391 Nigel Beckwith : totally unhinged and stupid and utterly lacking in insight
2019-11-24
Nigel Beckwith
You come across as totally unhinged and stupid and utterly lacking in insight. I have read you stuff and asked very simple questions and you fail to answer them each time using a variety of pathetic and childish tactics. The truth is you have no better theory and require diversions and subterfuge in order to try to get your reader to follow your silly game. Sorry. You have shown only one thing, you are a fool. Now take that as you wish. You are winning no one over with facts or evidence or skilled argument.
x392 Maxwell C. Bridges : The ball has been in your court for quite some time, love
2019-11-24
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, Let the record show that your first sentence is an ad hominem attack. Maybe if you had substantiation, I'd cop a guilty plea for being "totally unhinged and stupid and utterly lacking in insight". But you are not arguing in good faith.
The ball has been in your court for quite some time, love, for you to smack a line drive for NT. You continue to avoid the important assignment of matching NT to the evidence, and as a result continue to fail.
You wrote: "I have read you stuff and asked very simple questions and you fail to answer them each time using a variety of pathetic and childish tactics."
This becomes clues that you are a bot. (a) If you had read my stuff, your simple answers would have been answered. You'd probably have more complex questions. (b) Thinking you had not read my work, I did answer your question in two ways. I explained again how FGNW would do it, and I offered substantiating reference material in several places. THAT you didn't see my answer or recognize it to be as such, is telling.
I noticed that your response had no quotations from my work with an explanation on what makes it wrong. Are you sure you read it?
Not one specific thing do you point out.
Although, I do admire your skill in assigning your weaknesses to me with the clever and humorous "a variety of pathetic and childish tactics" phrase. El-oh-el. What a great summary of not just your last comment, but of your entire participation.
The ball remains in your court, love. You're promoting NT; you defend how NT causes the anomalous evidence exposed in the NIST videos.
P.S. Your AE9/11Truth link is worthy of study, for it is a mighty fine example of clever disinformation. Its omissions are grand.
I do not believe the expulsions through window slits 10-20 floors ahead of the collapse wave were "squibs" in the traditional controlled demolition sense.
I describe them as the conventional detonation phase needed to kick off a fission reaction phase. The fission then provides the heat needed for fusion phase. It isn't as if this squib were observed in other symmetric points on other faces of the towers. That's because it was blow-back from this conventional detonation phase.
//
x393 Nigel Beckwith : 3 buildings came down via Nanothermite only!
2019-11-24
Nigel Beckwith
You told a lie at the very offset....you said A&E claimed that the 3 buildings came down via Nanothermite only!!?? Now are you denying that? If no then I have said all that I need to say.
x394 Maxwell C. Bridges : conjecture on what else was involved with NT
2019-11-24
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, if it be true that A&E did ~not~ claim that the 3 buildings came down with NT alone, then please provide me with their conjecture on what else was involved with NT.
Dr. Jones said it was mixed with something like RDX to get the brisance, but nobody fucking measured RDX or any other such explosives. Later, Dr. Jones said that NT was only presumably responsible for six spikes in the releases of gases off of the pile, and he also said that "something maintained the hot-spots, not just NT." Where is the analysis into what that something was?
The onus is on you. You are making the claim that NT did not act alone. I'm having you prove it.
And were you not a bot, you'd be having an "ah-ha" moment and acknowledging that FGNW might just be that something else that only a few hardy souls (like me) want to legitimately research and connect dots on.
Cough up the AE9/11Truth conjecture about the mechanisms used in tandem with NT, because now we know and acknowledge that NT did not work alone, and our research & 9/11 Truth cheer-leading are not done until that Truth is known. Follow the rabbit.
//
x395 Nigel Beckwith : weakening or severing of the main frame
2019-11-24
Nigel Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges The detailed information is on the site.
Nigel Beckwith
It is clear that they state that nanothermite was used to cause weakening or severing of the main frame prior to explosives demolishing the buildings. They have never said anything less. It appears to be you that simply cannot read.
x396 Maxwell C. Bridges : spam my thread with non-answers, non-research, and nothing specific
2019-11-24
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, Very clever how you once again spam my thread with non-answers, non-research, and nothing specific to back up your NT claim. You can't explain what else was used with NT, nor can you explain a possible placement of NT that will create steel doobies.
You have not offered one specific thing to defend NT in accounting for evidence, or to explain where FGNW is wrong.
This must be like our third spin on the same carousel.
Congratulations on being pegged an agent-bot. Woo-hoo!!! I win!
//
x397 Nigel Beckwith : resorting to lies and disinformation
2019-11-24
Nigel Beckwith
I have explained the facts and you are resorting to lies and disinformation. Just look at the A&E site. Nano thermite for only a preliminary party of the demolition, the rest explosives. It is fucking obvious. You are the internet troll pal. You are stating things that anyone can check up on. You ought to be careful what lies you tell and who you call names as one day it might come back to haunt you.
x398 Maxwell C. Bridges : identified AE9/11Truth deceit in reviewing Dr. Wood's work and their newer deceit in debunking "nuclear blasts"
2019-11-24
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, You wrote: "I have explained the facts." Really? Give me a quote from your comment that explained such facts. You'll get bonus points if those comments also explain how NT accounts for the NIST evidence or if you provide the substantiation for the "something else" that was used in tandem for NT.
You continue: "... and you are resorting to lies and disinformation."
If you don't explain what makes a statement "a lie" or "disinformation", if you don't substantiate, then the charges of "lie" and "disinformation" boomerang back at you.
But I missed your explanation of the facts. I'm so confident that you didn't provide it (and won't be able to quote from your masterful prior effort), that I'll be able to legitimately label your first sentence a lie.
Because I'm having fun, you seem to think that the A&E site has all the answers and "it is fucking obvious." Not to brag, but my knowledge of A&E's site is superior to yours. In fact, I have identified their deceit in reviewing Dr. Wood's work and their newer deceit in debunking "nuclear blasts". [When the nuclear weapons are framed improperly, it is easy for me to also agree that "nuclear blasts" didn't destroy the WTC. The blast portion would have been less than 20% the expected nuclear yield that was already sub-kiloton.]
Given how your agenthood characteristics are on display, I wonder if I should be alarmed at your THREAT: "You ought to be careful what lies you tell and who you call names as one day it might come back to haunt you."
First of all, I'm not telling "lies"; I am sincere in my beliefs making it at worst "misinformation". Were you to do your fucking homework and be specific in debunking my material, I'd be having an "ah-ha" moment and apologizing to the public for being so wrong.
Secondly, "name calling" fits into the defamation category. When it is substantiated though, it is no longer defamation but becomes a valid character assessment, even if negative.
You've been calling me "stupid", "unhinged", "liar", "internet troll", ... I have been consistent in my LONG internet history documented on my blog / website. I have legacy; you don't. Trolls don't have legacy. Ergo, boomerang duck.
I've been calling you "bot" and "agent" and laying out how your non-answers, your carousel spins, your inability to read, your inability to talk specifics, inability to tell the truth, etc. flag you as such.
With that, our discussion here probably should come to an end. You are not programmed to go into details or specifics. All you can do is re-crank the same carousel spins. Your algorithms don't tire of repeating itself, but I do. Clearly, I enjoy the discussion, but it becomes rather moot if your programming won't allow you to ever be convinced of errors / alternatives.
You fail, agent Nigel Beckwith. Unless you can prove some sincerity and genuine human qualities, you should run along.
//
x399 Nigel Beckwith : Nano thermite has never been claimed as the only aspect of the demolition
2019-11-24
Nigel Beckwith
I have told you...you are either mistaken or lying. Nano thermite has never been claimed as the only aspect of the demolition. Not at all. This is easy to check. Go on his site, read, watch and you will learn. Better still go and ask him? Now this is boring. You are so wrong and like a naughty child you cannot admit it.
x400 Maxwell C. Bridges : again with the bot-tells
2019-11-24
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, again with the bot-tells that we shall call "non-specifics" and "non-answers." You provided no quotations of your previously allegedly posted wise words telling me wonderous stories of NT and the steel doobies. You have done no deep-dives into my research; you have dragged no errors to the forefront.
Last chance. How does NT explain the steel doobies? What was its placement? How did it make the spandrels pliable?
Your bot carousel has teetered on a misconception about exclusivity of destructive mechanisms. Turns out that we are both in agreement that NT didn't act alone. Yet faced with this fact, you have been crippled in exploring what acted in tandem with NT. Your sources don't go there, so you don't have the brain cells (or database entries) to go there.
... So you weasel, weasel, weasel.
Whereas I regret that my sincere and legitimate attempts to convince you (or to convince me of your points) have utterly failed, their one crowning success was identifying you as an agent-bot.
Now please, go away. You can't defend your own premise in a coherent, thoughtful, rational, reasoned way. You are not genuine. You are not sincere. You probably aren't even human. You are losing badly, because your character was tried and found wanting.
P.S. Probably over Christmas, I'll have the time to gather my FB exchanges over the last couple years and get them re-purposed to my blog. This exchange will be highlighted. So funny, and such proof of continued and active disinformation on 9/11.
Should we have tangos in the future, I'll be providing the URLs to the discussion that will act as GOTO statements that expose carousel spins. And I'll be able to legitimately call you "bot" and "agent" in those new forums with the receipts to prove it.
You're only honorable out is to do the work and defend NT against the evidence, or admit NT's defeat.
//
Chapter 11: FGNW Discussions with Wayne Coste
I had fallen behind in being current on 9/11 affairs. Mr. Wayne Coste published his "no 9/11 nuclear devices" on 2019-08-25 and was based on AE9/11Truth FAQ #13 / FAQ #15, whose publication date I had also missed. When I learned of them, I obtained a spark to ignite my research efforts. Maybe these "no 9/11 nukes" works finally nail the coffin of my FGNW premise and bring me back into the fold of concensus 9/11 Truth. Or maybe not, and maybe their mis-/dis- information could be spotted by humble me.
The stilted framing of "no nuclear blasts" was clever, but incomplete. On purpose. A phrase that is valid, but not all encompassing of nuclear means.
My debunking efforts as part of "2020 FGNW Opus" had been started, but stalled by Facebook distractions.
As fate would have it, while in a NPT discussion, I ran across Mr. Wayne Coste. Once I had dispatched the NPTer with WTC aircraft physical evidence, I had mentioned to Mr. Coste that I had issues with his "no 9/11 nukes" work.
Which then let to this wonderful conversation: the best FGNW discussion yet.
Alas, Mr. Coste's reputation was already known to me through his Pentagon plane efforts and discussions with Mr. Craig McKee. The reputation was justified.
I was surprised and disappointed in Mr. Coste's inability or unwillingness to defend not even a single section of his work that I critiqued section-by-section. Our discussion went into other valid and useful nuclear terain, but this omission, this avoidance, this weaseling out of the detailed discussion that he asked for?
At times, Mr. Coste's responses seemed to reflect genuine objectivity in considering my new and deviant nuclear analysis into FGNW. It seemed as if I was convincing him to change his mind. But then as time progressed, it unraveled as just another stalling technique, and pre-determined agendas would be returned to in his mind.
x402 Wayne Coste : revisit your (insufficiently-researched) position on No-plane-at-the-Pentagon
2019-12-06
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Great line of argument about planes at the WTC. But you need to revisit your (insufficiently-researched) position on No-plane-at-the-Pentagon. ALL the evidence supports a plane impact -- nothing supports explosive detonations at the Pentagon (required for every alternative to a large plane impact).
What do you know that I don't know about the damage to the Pentagon and what caused it: Here is a summary of what I know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_5WdUhQgI
9/11 Evidence at the Pentagon: Summary
YOUTUBE.COM
9/11 Evidence at the Pentagon: Summary
9/11 Evidence at the Pentagon: Summary
x403 Maxwell C. Bridges : over-generalizations in argumentation are easily defeated
2019-12-06
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, as a sophomore in high school writing class, I learned that over-generalizations in argumentation are easily defeated, such as your claim "ALL the evidence supports a plane impact...". Seems to me, isn't the number in the 80's about how many surveillance videos on and around the Pentagon that might have captured the arriving plane and its impact? You have three, inconclusive frames off of a parking camera to suggest a plane impact, versus 80-something videos that were confiscated and not a one made public. ... Now THAT is an action of someone not trying to hide something, such as no actual airplane impact.
That pesky physics of high velocities that defeats the no-planers at the WTC in some of their arguments is also truth healing at the Pentagon. According to the official conspiracy theory (OCT) and your position, a commercial aircraft made a 270 degree descending spiral, clipped 6 (?) light poles, came in at ground level with no grass scraping, and punctured a hole too small for the alleged aircraft model and didn't do any of the wingtip-to-wingtip cartoon outlines like similar aircraft did at the WTC.
The high velocity physics, however, would have severely decimated the wings upon clipping those light poles -- equal and opposite energy, velocity (500 mph) squared in the energy equation... We saw with WTC damage, Sandia F4, and Mythbusters Rocket-Wedge what energy is present. The alleged aircraft hitting those poles at that high velocity would have left parts of the wings on the Pentagon lawn if not the fuselage itself.
The alleged aircraft would have left far more bodies and luggage everywhere.
No. Physics suggests the plane couldn't have flown that path directly into the Pentagon (without "staging the area and purposely downing those poles" possibly even during the night before.) Staging the light poles to permit a real aircraft to fly the path is certainly within the realm of possibility for the (Zionist) perpetrators.
The reality is, they need this to be precise: the Office of Naval Intelligence, all of its investigators and their records into the (September 10th announced by Rumsfeld) missing $2.3 trillion in defense spending. An aircraft clipping light poles isn't precise. A cruise missile is.
I'm just playing with you, Mr. Wayne Coste, because "no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville" are not my hobby-horse. I'm in the Craig McKee camp on the Pentagon. I've followed tangentially your (and Mr. Chandler's) Pentagon debates, and don't find your OCT side all that convincing. My reasoning above attacks your premise from a different angle.
My real hobby-horse is the use of fourth generation nuclear devices at the WTC. On that front, I find both AE9/11Truth and your "no 9/11 nuke" efforts most dubious and disinfo.
I would like to give you the opportunity to prove that you are a rational and objective citizen capable of researching and deciding for yourself, and changing your opinions when new evidence or facts so merit it. I wish to have 9/11 nuclear discussions with you: "Convince me or let me convince you." I've read your work; you don't convince me and it is based on a faulty premise "no nuclear blasts did 9/11".
Please accept my friend request, and let's stake out a forum or turf where we can have that rational discussion.
//
x404 Wayne Coste : What specifically (from my article) do you find objectionable from a technical point of view
2019-12-06
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: OK. Here is the article I posted, What specifically do you find objectionable from a technical point of view.
For starters, please pick just one topic to get started. We can get to the others eventually.
https://www.911tap.org/component/k2/557-news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review
Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
911TAP.ORG
Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An…
Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
x405 Maxwell C. Bridges : Challenge Accepted and Engagement Terms
2019-12-06
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I accept your challenge. Your website does not seem to allow comments. Our discussion, to do it justice, needs its own little FB posting so the comments can be dedicated to it.
I've created such a location on my FB wall, but you'll have to send me a friend request to get there, or accept the one I sent you a while ago. Presently, we are only seeing each other's comments because we're part of the same FB group.
I'm not too keen on having that discussion here. I don't know yet exactly where this particular forum is going. Seen too many times how forums owned or controlled by others can disappear worthy words.
I will be saving my effort off-line for re-purposing elsewhere later (when I get around to it, CYA.) Thus, I guess it doesn't matter too much if you'd like to create a posting on your FB home-turf instead of mine. Other locations? At the very least and to be courteous to the NPT discussions of this FB posting & discussion, we need to move the nuclear debate elsewhere.
Might be other terms of the debate you'd like to negotiate before we start.
Here's some terms that I will have.
I'd like to limit our discussion to one place, because debates on multiple fronts have a way of becoming incoherent, weak, redundant, and another spin on the same carousel.
Multiple comments in a row in a short period of time by the same person to the same thread (when they could have been combined into one comment with SHIFT-ENTER) will be considered SPAM and is a foul. Exceptions: when the each comment has a unique URL or relevant meme to highlight; when a FB comment hard word-limit has been hit; when the last comment was literally hours earlier and the next comment has a new perspective.
There will be no expectation of an instant response. I know that when I pause and write my response off-line, I have the freedom to consider different versions. I rarely post the first shoot-from-the-hip response that I pen, and subsequent versions help tone down and remove flame-baiting language. You are free to read whatever you want into my "Dear Mr. Wayne Coste" honorific, but I find that even sarcastically it is better than most of the more vulgar alternatives.
I have a life and am not paid to post... And I'm also trying to reign in the addiction FB has over me. So, maybe once a day for a limited amount of time, I can be counted on to post a response or two.
... What else? ... Hmmm.
Your terms, Mr. Coste?
//
x406 Wayne Coste : waste my time in a back-water
2019-12-06
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell, I'm sorry, I don't want to waste my time in a back-water.
My perspective is that regarding FGNW you don't have shit. Nothing. Zero.
I don't want you to hide your embarrassing nothingness on your private wall.
While there may be advanced nuclear technologies -- they were not involved at the WTC on 9/11.
Answer what is wrong with my assessment that I posted in this article -- here -- at your convenience (because we both have lives).
https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review
Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
911TAP.ORG
Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An…
Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
x407 Maxwell C. Bridges : still negotiating WHERE the discussion will take place
2019-12-06
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Why thank you very much for that most charitable assessment of my FB wall: "embarrassing nothingness". Woo-hoo! Amazing how "nothingness" could even arise to the level of being "embarrassing", but if you say so, and it means it can't hurt you.
Ok, so choose where you want to have this discussion. If your FB wall isn't a backwater as well, we can have it there, but you still need to FB friend me. Simple assignment you aren't passing.
You miss the salient point, which is that having the discussion here in this disinfo NPT thread is most disrespectful. We need to move it.
Don't worry, Mr. Wayne Coste, I'm prepared to take your work down section by section. I've followed your links to their sources, to your sources' footnotes, and into the sources of those footnotes. Haven't written it all up yet, but my mind has mapped out a couple of different ways to undermine your agenda. One example, is that I could go through each bullet point in your conclusions and prove them stilted and wrong.
Be that as it may, we're still negotiating WHERE the discussion will take place. Given the lack of the acceptance of my FB friend request, or one of from you, you're the one who is looking like a weasel. Won't accept my FB request; won't battle on one posting of my FB wall; haven't provided an alternative venue; and are taking this NPT discussion most disrespectfully into the weeds.
I am a serious and worthy debate opponent. Do your homework on me. Here's my blog.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/
We can have the discussion on my blog, by the way (and its "embarrassing nothingness" as well), but its commenting mechanism really isn't as good as FB. So here's your chance to name the turf.
//
x408 Wayne Coste : waiting your assessment here (in an NPT thread)
2019-12-06
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges I’m waiting you assessment here
x409 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Here" is not the proper place for nuclear discussions
2019-12-06
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, stop being a weasel, and a disrespectful one at that. "Here" is in posting about NPT specifically under a thread of the same. "Here" is not the proper place for nuclear discussions. "Here" is the very definition of a back-water place, probably worse than my wall.
And as near as I can tell, you still haven't accepted my friend request, nor have you sent me one, so that we can better the communication channels.
You are welcome to make a fresh posting to this forum (9/11 Verified Truth) to kick off the discussion. You are welcome to go to my wall and make a comment under the posting I have there.
The ball is in your court, and it is the simple challenge of you defining an appropriate court for the discussion to proceed. Rest assured, I'll be happy to ding your credibility based on weasel actions, but this is a trap you can easily avoid and I am being more than fair and generous in pointing out the pitfall.
Friend me. Then (a) go to my wall and use the posting there as our debate field. Or, (b) post a new posting here with your article.
If your work is really all that jizzle and more, then surely specifying an agreeable (FB or other) location for the debate is not a hardship... unless your plan is to forever be the dodging weasel, unwilling to defend your own work on a level playing field.
You will get my critique of your work (and of that work on which your work is based) in due time. You have my word on that, and that is quite possibly what you have to be worried about, hence the weasel actions to define the debate location or accept the one or two that I have already offered. Doesn't reflect well on your character to lurker-readers, so please try to improve.
//
x410 Wayne Coste : rapid release of energy
2019-12-08
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges OK. First question to you is whether a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW) operates by means of rapid release of energy as mass is converted to energy in relationship to Einstein's equation e=mc^2.
x411 Maxwell C. Bridges : what form will that energy release take?
2019-12-09
Mr. Wayne Coste asked the question: "OK. First question to you is whether a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW) operates by means of rapid release of energy as mass is converted to energy in relationship to Einstein's equation e=mc^2."
Yes. But the more interesting question is: what form that energy release will take?
The isolated explosions that were seen bursting out of the face of the WTC towers ahead of the collapse wave have been termed as "squibs". I believe that ~if~ they were really squibs in the traditional controlled demolition sense, there would have been more of them per detonation level and in total, and they would have been symmetric and simultaneous at a given level.
Instead, we only saw per detonation level one "squib". I suggest that this was kickback from a conventional explosive needed to jump start the fission stage, which generated the heat for the fusion stage that then released its highly energetic neutrons upwards (in a cone shape).
I know where you're going with your question. Your rhetoric will try to frame the discussion around not just fission devices, but also a large fission device as a strawman that you'll try to knock down by correctly stating the observed destruction wasn't loud enough, energetic enough, or radioactive enough.
Unlike with first- thru third-generation nuclear devices, FGNW can be used in tandem as long as their highly energetic neutrons are aimed to not hit partner devices. In the case of the WTC towers, lower FGNW were timed to ignite after upper FGNW had ignited. In the case of WTC-6, the devices were placed, say, in corners and aimed away from the walls. They zapped the roof right out of a recognizable existence as a roof structure. And, the vaults underneath WTC-6 were not targeted, at least sufficiently so that FEMA was able to determine that its vaults were emptied beforehand.
Be that as it may, I'll foreshadow how your premise (of no-nukes) will get destroyed again and again in our forthcoming discussion.
FGNW devices release 80% of their total nuclear yield (already dialed back to be sub-kiloton) as highly energetic neutrons. Less than 1/5 of its yield would be available for the standard nuclear side effects of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP that the earlier generations used as their primary means of destruction.
The deceit of AE9/11Truth and your web page is to frame the discussion as "nuclear blasts", whereby air served as the primary medium of destruction. Such "nuclear blasts" would have been loud and energetic, and would have blown nuclear badness all over the place.
The paradigm shift with FGNW is that the highly energetic neutrons passed through all content / materials in their targeted emission, and in doing so, left behind energy in the form of heat deep within the molecular structures. The materials reaction to this sudden deposit of heat would be very different from destructive "blasts" using the medium of air.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
To my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word of speculation regarding the devices used to destroy the WTC on 9/11. His works on FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11 were peer-reviewed and published in reputable science publications. It isn't as if nuclear scientists were stepping out in droves (or even as individuals) to debunk his efforts; quite the contrary, many of his works went through multiple revisions, which would indicate that nuclear scientists were providing feedback to tweak his works so that they could be more fully in agreement.
Dr. Gsponer's FGNW is only the tip of the iceberg and only what is public. Below the surface and what was not in the public domain, FGNW is undoubtedly more detailed. "Star Wars", the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and the various other acronyms that such nuclear weapons research later assumed over the 50+ years leading up to 9/11 were ~not~ "public works project to employ nuclear scientists with no expectation ever of producing something that works."
//
x412 Maxwell C. Bridges : intro references AE9/11 Truth with FAQ #13 / FAQ #15
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your intro references work by AE9/11 Truth with FAQ #13, which in turn eventually goes to two similar PDF files for FAQ #15 that differ only in their use of end notes versus footnotes.
The main body of FAQ #15 tried to summarize the analysis efforts that the references (e.g., end notes or footnotes) supposedly thoroughly covered. The endnote PDF version was probably created first, but when all the references were backloaded, the main body didn't look all that scholarly. They then created the footnote PDF so that at first glance it had more the appearances of being detailed and scholar.
Alas, when a scholar dives into the meat of the footnotes, they discover that the footnotes cherry-picked things. As an example, Mr. Jeff Prager work is pretty substantial, but FAQ #15 footnotes don't go into his dust analysis and instead choose to pick a fight about an inconsequential description.
FAQ #15 frames the discussion around "nuclear blasts". For this technicality, rational researches would be inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the towers. The FGNW do not rely on "nuclear blasts" but on energy deposited deep within molecular structure of materials. Because FGNW were not considered, FAQ #15 cannot be relied upon as the final word or authority on "no-nukes".
FAQ #15 ends up being an effort to "blind readers by science" without actually doing a fair and objective analysis of the works it tries to debunk. This effort runs parallel to Popular Science's hit-job on 9/11 Truth.
FAQ #15 was one of the pillars of your web page, and gets knocked out from underneath your no-nukes premise right from the get-go.
//
x413 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Nuclear Detonations" section suffers from framing the nuclear devices
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Nuclear Detonations" section suffers from framing the nuclear devices as something from first- thru third-generation nuclear devices.
I'm hitting low-hanging fruit in your disinfo effort, so will defer to another comment later a detailed assessment of your link to your earlier article "Review of Atomic Elements found at the World Trade Center."
Off the top of my head, looks like a lame attack against Mr. Jeff Prager's work. You go to great efforts to find more benign explanations for the many bad elements found in the USGS Dust Analysis.
Something to note: the USGS analysis of the dust found Uranium and its decay elements, but had no plain text explanations for why such was in the dust. That same USGS analysis did not find energetic NT or other things (Dr. Jones suggests) NT was mixed with. Knocks out two of your supporting pillars with one go.
Another thing to note according to Mr. Prager. Uranium and its decay elements were found in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample. This would rule out lots of lame-ass explanations for some of those elements, like "X is found in computer display terminals, Y is found in certain devices, and Z is found in certain vegetables." The alleged sources of the anomalous decay elements were not in proportional quantities in the towers. The only way X, Y, and Z could be found in correlated quantities sample to sample is if X, Y, and Z were part of the destructive mechanism.
Coincidently, X, Y, and Z were the exact fingerprints of nuclear involvement.
We're not talking about three elements X, Y, and Z, though. In reality we're talking about 9 or so elements.
I promise a more thorough debunking in this thread later, but have already highlighted its issues.
https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/703-review-of-atomic-elements-found-at-the-world-trade-center
//
x414 Maxwell C. Bridges : principal documents used to support the erroneous belief of no nuclear devices
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, as a related side note, an earlier work of mine dives into the principal documents used to support the erroneous belief that no nuclear devices being used on 9/11/2001. They were:
- "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
- "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.
- "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" by Dr. Steven Jones.
Your paper seems to rely on these, but they all have issues. Your work suffers from that reliance. You accepted such papers unquestioned and unchallenged, and seem to prop them up as definitive and authoritative. They were not the final word on badness found, in part because they all suffer from sampling issues and other scientific sleight of hand.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x415 Maxwell C. Bridges : section "Silent Nukes" begins with a scope-limit and scientific sleight of hand
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your section "Silent Nukes" begins with a scope-limit and scientific sleight of hand.
"A nuclear detonation creates three types of damage: heat, radiation and blast damage via a large over-pressure wave. A nuclear explosion creates a huge over-pressure wave that would be very loud, distinct and captured in the audio record of the many videos of the towers being destroyed."
That is all just so first- thru third generational nuclear weapons! It makes no mention of neutron devices or the deviant hell-spawns of such, which are FGNW.
You wrote: "The destruction via a large over-pressure blast wave from a nuclear detonation is what was asserted to have created the observed damage."
Indeed, in order to control the message and steer public consideration from the correct nuclear mechanisms, various disinfo agents (like the Russian agent Dimitri Khalezov) proposed incorrectly singular nuclear devices per tower that were deep-underground.
Indeed, that premise is bullshit and doesn't match the observable and recorded evidence.
Thus, this section is just you knocking down a straw man.
The ignition of a FGNW via a conventional charge would have been (and was) audible, but the aims of the conventional charge detonation and the fission stage were not destruction (via "over-pressurize blast waves"); the aim was to trigger the fission stage to achieve the heat required for the fusion stage. Neither the detonation nor the fission trigger would necessarily have been loud, because that wasn't their purpose.
What is funny is that this "Silent Nukes" section may debunk first- thru third generation nuclear devices, but it also debunks NT (mixed with whatever you want to achieve the observed brisance in the pulverization). The destruction wasn't loud enough for NT to have caused it.
Meanwhile, this "Silent Nukes" section doesn't touch FGNW, because such devices aren't relying on overpressurize wave for its destruction.
Here is a Gedankenexperiment. Let's focus for a moment on concrete that has residual water molecules trapped inside. At a micro level when the highly energetic neutrons pass through this and leave some energy in the form of heat behind, what happens? The water molecule instantly turns to steam whose expanding volume pressure would create a micro-fracture at that micro-location. It wouldn't necessarily be loud, what with it being deep inside the concrete mass.
But now imagine that it wasn't one micro-fracture at one micro-location. No, imagine that a whole concrete slap through its whole thickness experienced instantaneously micro-fractures. Again, this event wouldn't necessarily be loud, because most of the micro-fractures were within the concrete itself. Only the outer surface layers would be in contact with air, but those individual micro-fractures aren't displacing large volume or over-pressurizing lots of air. It would not be loud.
In summary, your "Silent Nukes" section with its sound-level tables debunks the use of NT while validating the energy delivery of FGNW wasn't loud.
//
x416 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Brilliant Flash" section is another example of malframing nuclear devices
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Brilliant Flash" section is another example of malframing nuclear devices into being (a) singular and (b) large.
Smaller devices who direct most of their highly energetic energy upwards could easily be positioned within the building (maybe even within a box) that could mask any such flash.
//
x417 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Subterranean Nuclear Devices" section is bit of a strawman
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Subterranean Nuclear Devices" section debunks the disinfo of singular deep underground nukes as a bit of a strawman.
"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon
This section has nothing to do with FGNW, where probably 6-12 were used per tower.
//
x418 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Atomic Elements" section: debunking phrase-that-pays is "correleated quantities,"
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Atomic Elements" section tries to summarize your other work, which I said I'd go into detail in another thread under this posting.
Despite how you try to frame the benignness of those 9 elements and how they would normally still be present, the debunking phrase-that-pays is "correleated quantities," and therefore needs to be attributed to a single source (multiple FGNW) rather many sources with unequal distribution throughout the complex.
//
x419 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Tritium" section: bullshit accepted unquestioned and unchallenged
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Tritium" section is another piece of bullshit work where you accepted unquestioned and unchallenged shoddy work from others who were scope-limited into what they were looking for and their starting hypothesis.
Tritium is the building block of all FGNW.
Here is a quote from my write-up.
+++ begin quote
Many reports pertaining to 9/11 exhibit the "unscientific method" of adopting a conclusion and manipulating efforts & information to fit that conclusion. For example, the security clamp-down of the WTC site prevented fire investigators for doing their job, and they rightfully complained. FEMA's investigators were not granted access to the site until the week of October 7. Part of the rationale (cover-up) went: "We already know that airplanes damaged the towers and started fires, so we already know what caused the WTC destruction. Therefore, the efforts of fire investigators aren't needed."
Along those same lines, when the cover-up team knew what the true sources of destruction were, they could be pro-active in steering analysis about anomalous features. An excellent example of this is: "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams. This work was "performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48."
Tritium is a common feature in nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND). In order to prevent speculation from going to FGND, the study was "scope limited" to attribute tritium to RL devices that might already be in the contents of the WTC complex.
They wrote: "We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the possibility that tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC... Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero... Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces."
Further, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the source for tritium or the destruction, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that ready binds with hydroxyl radicals to form tritiated water, (HTO or heavy water). It is thus diluted by water. From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.
Sampling for tritium took place on 9/13 and 9/21. These delays are noteworthy because with this the study implies that tritium levels from 9/21 -- after much dilution from rain and firefighting efforts -- would be representative of tritium levels from 9/11. Samples were only taken in run-off from WTC-6 and not from around any of the other buildings or hot-spots. They stopped taking additional samples when their analysis indicated levels well below the EPA threshold for what constitutes a health risk.
In addition to the shoddy sampling, the study re-defines "trace or background levels" to be 55 times greater than they were previously.(More details.)
The conclusion buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft exit signs yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
To fill the gap in tritium measured, they turn to a supposition about weapons' sights. Their modeling suggested a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons were destroyed with leaking tritium. The study mentions "evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC," but does not provide an accurate reporting (1) of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, (2) of what weapons were recovered and with only minor damage, or (3) of where weapons were stored before the destruction and thereby being able to account for the tritium at the limited sampling locations. In other words, the extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption.
The conclusion is a bit forced but in line with the limited scope of the study: "This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source."
The authors of the study did an admirable job of supposing that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons' sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water). Further, they succeeded in conveying the message that the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health.
However, readers of the report must assume (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
The bigger issue caused by this study is when it is later re-purposed by Dr. Steven Jones as the final word on tritium at the WTC: unquestioned and unchallenged.
+++ end quote
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x420 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Health Effects / Cancers" section again has a juked scope
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Health Effects / Cancers" section again has a juked scope, where you try to attribute all ill-health to first- thru third-generation nuclear devices, which rightfully would have blown their nuclear badness everywhere.
The fact is, FGNW had their ignition localized within the towers and weren't using overpressure "nuclear blast" waves to create the destruction.
Agreed, lots of other materials that were zapped in the towers (e.g., asbestos) and present in the debris would have been a bigger cause of physical ailments.
I say, "ho-hum" to your lame efforts. I refer you instead to my section 20 "Decontamination and First Responder Ailments" from:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x421 Maxwell C. Bridges : watch these NIST videos
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, the patron saint of 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Your assignment is to watch these NIST videos. Because you champion NT, you are to contemplate what the placement of NT would be to achieve these anomalies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
//
x422 Maxwell C. Bridges : NIST FOIA Release 10: Notice the camera scintillation
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
Here's part 2. Lots of great evidence of 9/11 destruction that NT cannot explain. [28.51]
FGNW's instant volume heating from highly energetic neutron penetration easily explains the collected evidence from the scrap yards. Most of the other theories for 9/11 do not, nor can they suggest (a) how the chemical-based [NT] explosives were positioned or (b) why such anomalies resulted.
The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly, which are the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the sprandels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
//
x423 Maxwell C. Bridges : NIST FOIA Release 10: Notice the camera scintillation
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, A startling discovery from Mr. Heinz Pommer's work [www (dot) 911history (dot) de] was real-time evidence of radiation in the immediate after-effects of the towers' destruction. This evidence is in the form of camera scintillation (flashes or sparkles of light) as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud.
At about 0:52 in the following video of the South Tower Dust Cloud, the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.
https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52
//
x424 Maxwell C. Bridges : NIST FOIA Release 10: Notice the camera scintillation
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Here is an example from "Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10." Notice how the camera scintillation affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.
https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291
//
x425 Wayne Coste : scanned some of the material you presented
2019-12-09
2019-12-09
https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/644582302746019/?comment_id=645289652675284
Wayne Coste
Maxwell: I've scanned some of the material you presented.
I guess we have one more preliminary question.
I'd like to know if you invoke any other fundamental forces of nature than the four that are classically referenced.
These Forces of Nature are Gravitational force, Weak Nuclear force, Electromagnetic force and Strong Nuclear force.
Got any others?
x426 Maxwell C. Bridges : weasel move from addressing my several identified objections to your original work?
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I hope that your comment is really an acknowledgment that you saw my replies, and you're scanning them to find first one of many to respond to.
Otherwise, I'll be disappointed, because it was you who dared me with:
"Here is the article I posted, What specifically do you find objectionable from a technical point of view."
I had a bit of extra time this morning, and through a combination of data-mining and composing new relevant text, was able to address your work section-by-section from a technical point of view and identify what was objectionable: the premise of "nuclear blasts" and conflating that to be the same for all generations of nuclear weapons.
When you posted your article, you wrote something that I can now paste in as if it were my words: "For starters, please pick just one topic to get started. We can get to the others eventually."
Start a thread by replying to any of my 12 or so top-level comments above.
+++ begin quote
I'd like to know if you invoke any other fundamental forces of nature than the four that are classically referenced.
These Forces of Nature are Gravitational force, Weak Nuclear force, Electromagnetic force and Strong Nuclear force.
Got any others?
+++ end quote
Two of my super-powers are being naive and trusting until given reason to be otherwise, So my hope is that the above preliminary question isn't a distraction or weasel move from addressing my several identified objections to your original work that anchors this posting.
In answer to your question, other forces of nature are Love and Fear, and the tolerances around each that give respectively healing and ailments, understanding and hate, ... satisfaction and dissatisfaction. However, this probably wasn't what you were driving at.
Spectrum, in terms of frequencies going from low through our audio range, to radio waves through microwaves to light waves and beyond. This broader concept of nature forces as spectrum fits into the category of what you ask.
For example, in an old Bible story, the walls of Jericho came down because the surrounding army marched in a manner and blew their horns at certain resonant frequencies that created a standing wave that shook down the walls.
Harmonic vibrations can be used to move great objects like the building blocks of the Pyramids, which themselves were giant batteries.
When I was doing my nuclear research and assessing Dr. Wood's work, I believe it is within the realm of FGNW to also release energy from the fusion process at specific wavelengths, that in turn, if those wavelengths were at molecular distances or harmonics thereof, might create resonant frequencies within materials to vibrate them to pieces.
I do not champion this on 9/11 at the WTC for various Occam Razar reasons. Getting a FGNW to release highly energetic neutrons is easy to do, because that is the whole concept of the neutron bomb well understood. Further, the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables and the stilted tritium reports. Plus, Dr. Andre Gsponer wrote about the types of devices.
Therefore, I had to take a step back from FGNW that would somehow transform the energy from the fusion process into some other form of energy at a specific wavelength. Seemed like overkill over-design, and much harder to do than simply releasing the highly energetic neutrons in a directed or targeted fashion.
//
x427 Wayne Coste : the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust
2019-12-09
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Just wanted to know if you were invoking a fifth force of nature that is implied, but never defined by the astrophysicists.
Love and Fear are not measurable in the physics laboratories -- and are not envisioned as part of this discussion.
Lets discuss this phrase .. "the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables." can you
x428 Maxwell C. Bridges : placeholder to return to later
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I respectfully decline at this point in time to discuss "the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables."
Each of my comments above were meant to address a specific section of your work. Because you only scanned my comments, you may have missed the one where I conveyed in not so many words the message: "This section is a rabbit hole that takes one to a completely separate web page and requires more work than I have time for today; I will return to this."
It turns out that your question relates to this exact same section for which I made a placeholder to return to later. [I do have the ammo already to some measure written up.]
Rather than waiting for me, pick out any of the other comments that address a section from your work.
Maybe I should have you acknowledge that "nuclear blasts" is the scope-limit placed on your work. When you recognize that FGNW release energy in a different manner and don't rely on over-pressurized blasts to destroy content, you'll have to revisit your work, your conclusions, and how that damn-nagget scope-limit got put on you.
Chop, chop. Even with my analysis still missing on that one section, I am still way ahead of you. "The ball is in your court, Love."
[I'm sorry about that, and didn't mean to flood you. But I've been working in recent weeks at quarter speed with lots of distractions on a detailed take-down of AE9/11Truth's FAQ #15, on which most of your work was based. I'd already given it much thought, and had relevant passages from previous efforts at my disposal.]
OCD-me, oh my! I'm a serious debate opponent on this FGNW hobby-horse of mine, and come prepared. Don't underestimate me. My blog already gives away my strategies, tactics, and long-term game plane. [One way or another, some day, I'll re-purpose this discussion there and rescue it from Facebook obscurity.]
This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste.
They didn't call me "an industrial strength conspiracy theorists" for nothing.
Alas, with the proper analysis that addresses all the evidence in a science-based way, this duped useful idiot can be convinced of something else, so all hope is not lost in discussion with me.
Case in point, I issued public apologies for having had been a rather ardent and persistent no-planer for several years many years ago, until a proper analysis that addressed all of the evidence in a science-based way convinced me of its errors.
Take this discussion seriously.
Looking forward to our rational and reasoned discourse!
//
x429 Wayne Coste : act like your are in pre-school
2019-12-09
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Regarding: "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste"
Actually, based on what I've seen so far, you appears to act like your are in pre-school.
Lets discuss this phrase .. "the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables."
x430 Maxwell C. Bridges : varsity 1st string, A-game time
2019-12-09
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, you wrote: "Actually, based on what I've seen so far, you appears to act like your are in pre-school."
Why, thank you for that glowing assessment! Too bad you had to resort to such grammatically challenged ad hominem, because it reflects poorly on you.
Too bad also that it was followed by a bot-move in repeating your request to analyze the dust, which I have now publicly written twice is at the top of my list of things to do [and you're not going like it.]
That you didn't comprehend my promise and the reasons for not doing it now -- like the project being a bit involved -- reeks of you assigning me busy work that you aren't going to look at, because you haven't looked at or addressed A SINGLE OBJECTION TO YOUR WORK already given in a dozen top-level comments above, just awaiting your learned and wise replies.
I am shocked, Mr. Coste, absolutely shocked that your efforts to defend your glorious "nuclear blasts" work is represented so far as... weasel moves, inabilities to FB friend, inabilities to specify a discussion forum for your work, ad hominem, bot-repeats, busy-work requests, ...
Clearly, you haven't scanned my blog yet and don't fathom how this discussion is going to reflect on you.
You are fumbling the ball spectacularly. Although you mocked it, I feel duty bound to repeat: "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste. ... OCD-me, oh my! I'm a serious debate opponent on this FGNW hobby-horse of mine, and come prepared."
Up your game, Mr. Coste. It is only your work and reputation that are at stake.
//
x431 Wayne Coste : release neutrons directionally
2019-12-11
https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/644582302746019/?comment_id=647451995792383
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges: While I had some quiet time on a plane, I spent some time with the materials you've suggested. I didn't finish the videos of the steel yards and clean-up -- but I did wonder if you could provide more clarity about just what you advocate regarding FGNW at the WTC on 9/11.
From what I've gathered, your hypothesis is that FGNW can be designed to release neutrons directionally and can be thought of as a cone with the FGNW at its apex. According to your hypothesis, the neutrons represent 80 percent of the energetic release with only 20 percent (or less) going into sound and heat. The neutrons then heat up the concrete to significantly over 212 deg F to turn bound water molecules in the concrete to steam -- which "explodes" the concrete in the well-known failure mode called spalling. Again, according to your hypothesis, this explosion of the concrete is what what the primary mode of destruction if the Twin Towers. Furthermore, you assert that WTC 6 was also destroyed by four additional FGNW around the opening in the building.
I'm struggling to understand the placement of the 6 to 12 FGNW devices in the Twin Towers. From what you've provided, I envision something like the following possible arrangements. Because you have studied the mechanics of destruction of the Twin Towers, do either of these arrangements fit your hypothesis. Can you provide more analysis of the patterns of the exploding concrete?
No photo description available.
x432 Maxwell C. Bridges : cone shaped outputs of the FGNW
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Your images of the cone shaped outputs of the FGNW are getting much closer to what I speculate. I ran into the same problem as you with regards to scaling and trying to depict something reasonable.
On the left hand portion of your drawing, the output cones are not positioned to miss the core. On the right hand portion of your drawing, the "height" of the cone is a bit too long. Although even in my scenario, the devices were ignited below where most of their damage was inflicted, your right-hand version has them too low. I estimate that the "squibs" (or "FGNW ignition") were 20-30 stories below where their output cone would graze the outer wall assemblies.
What needs to be taken into consideration is that in both towers (but most visible on WTC-2) had outer structure falling away leaving behind for a few moments tall portions of the inner core, which later became known as the spire. It is as if the multiple FGNW needed a stable platform that couldn't be zapped out from underneath them immediately by lower devices until the very end and clean-up device took it out.
I've depicted one scenario that mounted devices on alternate sides of the inner core. A second scenario (and more likely) is that two or more devices were positioned on corners on the inner core and ignited more or less together. The output of lower devices would overlap with destruction of upper devices.
//
x433 Maxwell C. Bridges : mock-up bad photoshop
2019-12-11
Here is another mock-up bad photoshop job on my part. Although it shows one device per level, a more accurate depiction to account for the spire would be 2-4 devices per level mounted on the corners of the inner spire and aimed to miss the spire. This might well increase the number of devices needed per tower from 6-12 to 24-48.
Clarification to the above: "per level" doesn't mean "per floor" as in "every floor." It means on the particular floors or levels where FGNW were mounted, there might have really been 2-4. Mounting may have been every 10th, 15th, or 20th floor.
//
x434 Maxwell C. Bridges : according to your hypothesis
2019-12-11
You summarized my words as: "According to your hypothesis, the neutrons represent 80 percent of the energetic release with only 20 percent (or less) going into sound and heat."
No. 20% (or less) went into a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Given that the 80% release of highly energetic neutrons was directed (upwards), I can only speculate how much of the heat wave and blast wave could also be sent in the same direction. They probably didn't have much control over the EMP except that the devices were within the steel wall assemblies and had metal floor pans underneath, which can help mitigate it spread. Window slits offer a line-of-sight path for EMP to escape.
The torched cars along West Broadway and in the car park are pretty significant anomalies that NT doesn't address.
Escaping EMP would create Eddy currents in metal hit line-of-sight. Sufficiently large Eddy currents could ignite paint and whatnot attached to the metal.
You wrote: "The neutrons then heat up the concrete to significantly over 212 deg F to turn bound water molecules in the concrete to steam -- which "explodes" the concrete in the well-known failure mode called spalling."
Also, you summarized my words as: "according to your hypothesis, this explosion of the concrete is what what the primary mode of destruction if the Twin Towers."
I wouldn't use the words "explodes" or "explosion of concrete", because it tends to get confused with "explosives" and "blast waves of over-pressurized air", and "sounds." If the expanding steam of a trapped water molecule only caused a micro-fractures or displaced neighboring content by microns, this displacement happens for the volume affected by the output beam. Doesn't have to mean a large displacement, which translates into a large sound.
You wrote about "the well-known failure mode called spalling" when trapped water molecules turned to steam and break apart content / materials in which they are trapped. Wasn't well-known to me, so thank you for bringing it up and giving me something to research.
Be that as it may, we know that concrete from the towers was represented in the debris pile as lots of dust, as opposed to larger chunks or slabs. Those who champion NT tend to say (paraphrased and probably mischaracterized by me) "NT or other shit were sprayed onto the concrete in the towers as maybe in the guise of fire-proofing, and that is what caused such dustification of concrete." I'm thinking: "Why? What would be the benefit?"
FGNW does it as more of a side-effect and doesn't require as much work at each level in each tower.
Another mock-up, but with showing of the spire.
//
x435 Maxwell C. Bridges : concrete spalling is not the same effect
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, now that I've some some simple research, "concrete spalling" is not the same effect as what I speculate highly energetic neutrons can create.
+++ begin quote
A spall is defined as flakes of material that are broken off of a larger solid body. Concrete spalling typically begins when the steel reinforcing embedded within the concrete member rusts. Contrary to popular belief, concrete is porous. Rusting of the embedded steel reinforcing occurs when that reinforcing bar is exposed to water and air; without both of these elements, the steel bar does not rust. When exposed to both of those elements, a chemical reaction takes place wherein iron oxide (rust) is produced. The production of iron oxide includes a volumetric expansion of the bar by up to 6 times the original volume, and that increase in volume imposes significant expansive forces upon the surrounding concrete. These expansive forces can cause the concrete to delaminate or to crack, spall, and break off.
+++ end quote
In my speculation about highly energetic neutrons going through the concrete floor slabs, the residual water molecules in the concrete, when turned instantly into steam, cause micro-fractures.
However, those same energetic neutrons hitting the embedded steel bars might just cause them to ablate; the leading edge vaporizes to quickly, it sends a shockwave into the rest of the steel bar that breaks the bar apart and the surrounding concrete.
"Spalling" is a chemical reaction of the steel with water, creating iron oxide (rust) that expands the volume of the bar and breaks the concrete.
"Ablating" isn't a chemical reaction. However, the resulting shockwave might create the same effects of breaking up the concrete.
https://www.robsonforensic.com/articles/concrete-spalling-expert-article/
//
x436 Wayne Coste : heating the concrete to only 212 F deg
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: I assume, from your comments about there being no significant concrete in the debris pile, that you assume virtually all of the concrete was heated to significantly above 212 deg F.
And because just heating the concrete to only 212 F deg might only create micro-fractures (only weakening the concrete) that the concrete might have been heated by the neutrons for 400 degrees F.
Perhaps you have a better neutron-induced rise in temperature to use for talking purposes?
x437 Maxwell C. Bridges : off by an order of magnitude
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, please don't be so daft. I never mentioned 212 deg F; you did. I think you are off by probably an order of magnitude.
What temperature is required to create tiny iron sphere that were found in the dust and that everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement is duped (by Dr. Jones & AE9/11Truth) into believing came exclusively from the NT chemical reaction?
Use the temperatures you assume came from NT, then assume that the concrete also experienced this.
Much higher temperatures available instantly means much greater expanding volume when the water turns to vapor.
"Temperatures" also isn't the right term. "Energy" is. The neutrons leave energy behind. Can take many forms, but heat is the most likely.
From the NIST videos you've been watching, how were wall assemblies and steel from the inner core volume heated to create arcs? How would NT have been positions to achieve this? (And why?)
//
x438 Wayne Coste : Wow, a real high energy event
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Wow, you are talking about a real high energy event aren't you. I mean, that is enough neutron energy to heat all the concrete in each tower up to -- for talking purposed -- to 2,800 deg F to create the iron spheres found in the USGS study.
I would agree with your comment about the ultimate observable effect of the post neutron-scatter interaction, "The neutrons leave energy behind. Can take many forms, but heat is the most likely."
Can you provide a link to the description of a neutron device similar to what you hypothesize was used -- the FGNW technology? I'm impressed with the neutron energy profile vs.heat output that you say such a device produces. Wow!!, in fact.
x439 Wayne Coste : many causes of concrete spalling
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Regarding the concrete spalling article you posed, please note the article states "There are many causes of concrete spalling... This article will address concrete spalling as a result of corrosion of its steel reinforcing ..."
Here is the general definition of spalling:
http://www.interfire.org/features/spalling.asp
"Spalling is a physical process of the breakdown of surface layers of masonry (typically concrete) which crumble into small pebble-like pieces in response to high temperatures and/or mechanical pressure. ... Alternatively, the heat may release the water in the concrete."
"Alternatively, the heat may release the water in the concrete... If the concrete is “green,” meaning recently poured, it is more susceptible to spalling because its water content is higher than concrete that has cured." (NOTE: The Hoover Dam built in the 1930's is still 'curing').
Also the ASCE mentions spalling the the Pentagon Building Performance Report, "Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show first-floor columns 5M,5N,3M,and 3N at the time of the BPS team visit. All four sustained thermal damage in the form of longitudinal cracks and corner spalling … (p. 43)"
I don't think we need to discuss the definition of spalling anymore (or the Pentagon) in this thread.
interFIRE, A site dedicated to improving fire investigation worldwide.
INTERFIRE.ORG
interFIRE, A site dedicated to improving fire investigation…
interFIRE, A site dedicated to improving fire investigation worldwide.
x440 Maxwell C. Bridges : final spalling perversion when temperatures are super high
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I directed a sub-comment to you above, under the second or third top-level comment. You may have to unwind some "View more comments" to get there.
Please forgive me for not wanting to duplicate in this thread what I've already put in early-on a top-level comment / placeholder for that exact subject and the resulting discussion on FGNW that I hope we can have.
I am most appreciative of the additions of "spalling" that you bring to my attention. Nice article.
Because I'm not a components engineer or nuclear weapons scientists or the like, I freely admit my (educated and learned) speculation into what happens when highly energetic neutrons are passed through multiple concrete floors of a WTC tower. Micro-fractures through the thickness of the targeted concrete areas owing to water molecules turning to high temperature steam may only go so far.
The spalling perversion I'll suggest relates to the steel rebar within the concrete. I envision them collecting much heat from the neutrons passing through, sufficient to "ablate" the bars. Meaning, the leading edge vaporizes so fast, it sends a shockwave through the rest of the material that blows it apart.
This would become very similar to spalling, and would create big chunks and fissures in the concrete. Accented by the aforementioned micro-fractures, would account for more crumbling, and for falling chunks of concrete to be seen "streaming badness" in the form of concrete no longer viable as a cohesive whole.
I guess the final spalling perversion that I suggest is that when temperatures are super high as only nuclear devices can accomplish, the spalling becomes much more thorough.
//
x441 Wayne Coste : concrete have ablated, but also the office contents
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell:From what I've read, from your hypothesis it appears that not only would the concrete have ablated, but also the office contents and some of the steel depending on the distance from the FGNW detonation. These other materials have different cross sections ("barns" I guess) -- but each atom does have a nucleolus that the neutrons would impact.
x442 Maxwell C. Bridges : applaud you for your objectivity
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, In the reference material from Dr. Andre Gsponer, he used the term "ablate" to refer to metals and how their atomic structure would react. Concrete is such a mixture of materials, I've only been making suppositions about part of it: the water molecules. Given that it was reinforced with steel bars, when those steel bars ablated, they could result in "spalling" as you brought up, but instantaneous and through out the volume of material targeted by the FGNW.
Meanwhile, though, I applaud you for your objectivity and in looking passed my "ass-holiness" to consider FGNW in a more serious manner. If nothing else, NT (in whatever mixture with other conventional chemical-based explosives) cannot explain logically, reasonably way too much of the evidence. And to give NT's PhD champions kudos, they never said it did.
(Their deceitful act was in stopping their research even when they knew NT didn't act alone, and in letting the science-challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement extrapolate NT into explaining evidence that NT really can't. Further, their no-nukes attempts were quite stilted and malframed on purpose.)
//
x443 Wayne Coste : Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP)
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Thank you for passing me through your "ass-holiness" filter. However, please be advised that you may eventually need to place me on the outside of that filter at some point in the future. I am still in the phase of gathering information.
I've reviewed the paper that includes a discussion of "Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP)" and it looks like 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed / scattered / dissipated in a 20cm layer of concrete. According to your hypothesis, this would be an enormous sink of energy in such a layer and would be consistent with your hypothesis of ablatement.
I'll also note that the galvanized steel panels under each layer of concrete is relatively thin and the graph shows the steel has a steeper curve -- suggesting a higher neutron absorption rate than the concrete per inch. If the FGNW blast were on the underside, the propensity to have increased ablatementation of the steel would be higher.
Is this graph of neutron absorption in accordance with your thoughts? If not, why not?
x444 Maxwell C. Bridges : thank you for adding more information and evidence in support of my premise
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I was extending you a complement for putting up with my "ass-holiness". Further, I thank you for adding more information and evidence in support of my premise.
The metal with the least representation in the debris pile were the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors. As you point it, metal had a higher neutron absorption rate with an increased ablatement. The tiny iron spheres that were recorded as an anomaly in everyone's dust samples represents both high temperatures and a huge energy sink.
I'll set aside those previous 9/11 Truthers who advocated nuclear devices, because most did so in a dubious manner: single nukes per tower, deep under-ground, large devices. Their ignition and effects would have been completely different from the observed outcomes, and rightly deserved to be debunked. To their credit, though, the dustification of concrete and the ablatement of steel are huge energy sinks, and nuclear devices are the only ones with the energy to spare.
I'll also set aside those previous 9/11 Truthers who advocated Woodsian DEW, because Dr. Wood did not power her speculation with anything real world, let her premise get framed as "beams from space" (having issue of optics scattering and the energy required at the source), was not an end-station, misrepresented evidence (e.g., cars at bridge, fire truck engine), did a shitty job of nuclear research, and let other dangling innuendo pervert her collection of evidence that clearly pointed to highly energetic weapons.
But here's the deal. Even those who "discovered" and promoted NT (e.g., Dr. Jones) admitted NT didn't have the needed brisance requiring it to be mixed with something else and stated that something besides NT maintained the hot spots which burned for literally months. Dr. Cahill's air samples (that started in October) measured metal particles, which mean an extremely hot-heat source was still present to continually generate such.
Further, those who promote NT do not discuss all the evidence. They have no explanation for how the metal pans and trusses were "disappeared", nor why. What would be the strategic gain for "painting NT" on everything? And how did NT cause the steel doobies and why? Or the arcs and other formations of the metal from the inner core and outer box columns, which in any other circumstance would require not just a blast furnace but also a measurable period (10-30 minutes) to achieve the volume heating the evidence represents.
You wrote: "I am still in the phase of gathering information." Preceded by words to the effect that maybe in the end, you probably won't be convinced of my FGNW premise and can't be counted in my camp.
Doesn't surprise me. The phrase "nuclear blasts" is one of the weaknesses of your work that you gobbled up from AE9/11Truth. I still have on my to-do list the debunking for your dust analysis.
A short version and preview of its take-down is this analogy: "A house burned down, and my (really, Jeff Prager's) hypothesis is baking of cakes was the cause. Your analysis says that most houses have flour, salt, sugar, and baking powder in the pantry, so finding such in the debris pile is no biggie and doesn't mean that baking was going on. My counter-argument simply goes back to the original (Jeff Prager) hypothesis: flour, salt, sugar, and baking powder were found in correlated quantities in all of the charred samples, which would not have been the case had these ingredients not been mixed together in the batter that got baked."
But again, it won't surprise me if you're gathering information in order to attempt later a take-down of FGNW. Your follow-up efforts to AE9/11Truth no-nukes indicates this would be in your trend line. [And you are in the camp of "real" aircraft at the Pentagon and Shanksville, and I am not.] I bring this up, because you have been serving as a stop-gap in preventing the search for truth from going where it needs to go.
When we tally who benefited from the surgical strike on the Pentagon (Office of Naval Intelligence: its agents and records into the missing $2.3 trillion), many sat in that same building, cozy and safe in another wing. A real aircraft would have been too messy with unpredictable damage and possibly not wiping out what it needed to destroy. That missing $2.3 trillion means they had the money to do whatever the fuck they wanted, because they were going to use the media to tell the public what they wanted the public to believe.
By my estimation, Zionist in US government leadership and Mossad boot-on-the-ground did 9/11.
//
x445 Wayne Coste : trigger for the FGNW devices?
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Can you refresh my memory about what you hypothesize was used as the trigger for the FGNW devices?
I did see this in a comment to the paper you posted, "Au contraire. I've already explained it was fission-triggered-fusion with evidence of fission (Uranium and decay elements, Prager's work) and fusion (tritium) leaking out of all reports."
x446 Wayne Coste : explain the contradiction
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Assuming that you are basing much of your hypothesis on the work of Andre Gsponer, can you explain the contradiction between the trigger you referred to in my previous post, and his paper that you posted (see. p11):
"There is no standard definition of fourth generation nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this paper, we may use either of the two definitions:
• Nuclear explosive devices based on atomic and nuclear processes that are not restricted 6 by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), or
• Nuclear explosive devices based on low yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non fission primaries.”
Wasn't your previous (above) answer a contradiction to Gsponer's definition?
I'm just trying to figure out exactly what your hypothesis is.
x447 Maxwell C. Bridges : trigger for fission would have been a conventional explosive shaped-charge to drive the radioactive elements together
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, we have evidence of fission in the dust samples (but not what we be expected from a 1st thru 3rd generation nuke.)
We observed a whole dog-and-pony show about tritium as lame cover-up for fusion, complete with sampling delays and under sampling and lame scope-limiting.
Fission is required as a trigger for fusion to generate the requisite heat. Nuke debunkers always malframe fission as being large and explosive and having a nuclear blast with lots of badness. True for 1st thru 3rd generation devices. However, fission-based power plants already proves it doesn't have to be so destructive. The aims of the fission process was not a destructive yield, but high heat.
The trigger for fission would have been a conventional explosive shaped-charge to drive the radioactive elements together. This goes all the way back to the Enola Gay and its payload for Japan.
The "squibs" observed on 9/11 ahead of the destruction wave I believe were kick-back from the shaped-charge explosive used to start the fission process.
Because you are an insider at AE9/11Truth, you should send this up their flagpole... Right to Dr. Jones himself, a nuclear scientists and the one most responsible for poo-poo-ing in a dubious manner ~all~ manner of nuclear devices. His reputation is at stake in a major way (unless he can see fit to correct his views and offer public apologies.)
While you are communicating with him, you can determine yourself his honesty and trustworthiness on the matter, and if he's being evasive.
The ball is really in his court, because how could his "nuke repudiation" efforts ~not~ have mentioned FGNW?
You don't have to get caught in his lies and deceit.
//
x448 Wayne Coste : Gsponer says anti-matter is the most promising trigger
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges I'm confused about your hypothesis.
According to the Gsponer paper you directed me to at the beginning of this thread, a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon doesn't use a fission trigger. What you describe above is a Tritium Boosted fission weapon as described in section 2.1.
I though you were using the Gsponer paper as the theoretical underpinning of your hypothesis. But it looks like you must have another source of technical information that you haven't shared -- or I haven't looked at (could be my oversight).
In Table1 in section 2.2 of Gsponer's paper, he says that a fission-triggered-fusion weapon would produce ~80 percent of the energy from the fission phase.
As I recall, Gsponer says anti-matter is the most promising trigger for a FGNW.
x449 Maxwell C. Bridges : what the literature suggests
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, You appear to be playing games or are demonstrating poor reading comprehension. Section 2 is titled "Second and third generation nuclear weapons". He's giving a review on the evolution of nuclear weapons.
Section 3 starts the discussion on FGNW, but you need the understanding from the previous sections.
Yep. Dr. Gsponer may have indeed said that anti-matter is the most promising trigger for FGNW... to get a pure fusion device. Doesn't mean that other triggers don't exist despite being less promising and dirtier.
My speculation goes "old school" with tried and true techniques. Conventional shaped charge to initiate fission? It is what the literature suggests how fission bombs are created. Fission trigger for fusion? It is what the literature suggests how fusion and neutron bombs are created.
Were it not for the fact that the dust analysis proves fission, and the tritium dog-and-pony shows proves fusion, I wouldn't be coming up with my "old school" theories.
To my knowledge, Dr. Gsponer hasn't written a single word about 9/11 and his speculation into the matter.
Guess that makes us even, because Dr. Jones et al haven't written a single word about how NT would be positioned to achieve steel doobies, meteors, and the slew of evidence in the NIST videos (that you still haven't commented on). How did NT pulverize the concrete and why? What would the aims of such be? Spray-on NT, while possible, would also be very work intensive to install. ~And~, NT isn't all that easy to ignite either, or haven't you been paying attention to Mr. Jon Cole's work?
For that matter, why did Dr. Jones et al not review Dr. Gsponer's speculative work and that of others, when it was clearly available and the direction nuclear weapons research was heading? As if nuclear physicists Dr. Jones didn't know...
These are excellent questions that you, with your AE9/11Truth connections, need to ask the good doctor.
Did I ever mention the excellent read "Tritium on Ice"? You wouldn't believe the creative political games played to assure that the MIL could continue to have a supply of tritium, whose half life is like 15 years and needs to be constantly refreshed in modern weapons. It is a fascinating and sickening tale, I can assure you.
//
x450 Wayne Coste : you describe a Tritium Boosted fission weapon
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: You use the term Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW), but what you describe is a Tritium Boosted fission weapon as described in section 2.1 of the Gsponer paper. I don't see the linkage with the Gsponer definition of FGNW -- do you?
But we can leave the semantics of second or fourth generation nuclear weapon for another time.
Have you estimated the energy required to ablate the concrete and bring it to a temperature of over 2600 deg F? As mentioned earlier, the neutrons would also raise the temperature of the steel and even the other office contents.
x451 Maxwell C. Bridges : leading edge vaporizing so fast that it causes a shock wave in the rest of the material that blows it apart
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I was not talking about ablating of concrete, because ablating has the connotation of the leading edge vaporizing so fast that it causes a shock wave in the rest of the material that blows it apart. That is what happened to the steel. I think the neutrons passed right through the concrete leaving energy behind and acted on things within: steel rebar, water molecules, and aggregate things mixed in.
So, the steel reinforcements within the concrete ablating? Sure, and that in turn gave us a certain measure of spalling for concrete that wasn't micro-fractured all over by trapped water molecules turning instantly into extremely high pressure steam.
No, I have not estimated the temperatures required for either metal or concrete ablating, because the nuclear source has energy to spare, as is in fact the HUGE tell in the operation. If the government is going to be arguing "gravity" as the cause, then the implementation cannot be so obviously overkill. For that matter, when a 9/11 Truther is talking controlled demolition using conventional chemical-based explosives (which we can graciously assume includes anything mixed with NT), such overkill is not something that the domestic terrorists would plan and implement, because (a) it directly translates into logistics of materials and increases time to implement that adds risk of detection, and (b) such overkill would not look like their "gravity." Demolition experts influenced by Hollywood can implement all sorts of destructive wonders, and they for sure could have gone to extra pains to make it not look like controlled demolition. They didn't, which means the overkill was more of a side-effect of the mechanisms chosen than of something planned.
Estimates of temperature have been made of what was required to create the iron spheres in the dust in the whole NT limited hang-out. Start with those figures. And remember, the hot-spots burned for literally months as a result of either (a) something super duper hot, (b) nuclear fizzle in one or more devices, or (c) all of the above.
Listen to what the Governor of NY was saying about the concrete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fKXyWK9SQ
//
x452 Wayne Coste : any objection to the concept of the concrete being heated up to, say 2500 def F by neutron scattering
2019-12-11
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Regarding your coment, "I think the neutrons passed right through the concrete leaving energy behind and acted on things within: steel rebar, water molecules, and aggregate things mixed in."
I don't know how you can make this assertion.
The neutrons that are central to your hypothesis encounter the nuclei in the concrete as well as the steel and water vapor. The heating occurs because of the elastic/inelastic neutron scattering. As I understand it, you are not talking about microwaves that excite water molecules more than concrete or steel -- but neutrons.
The following figure shows that neutron absorption of steel concrete (3.2 g/cm^3) and water are very similar. These absorption are driven by the cross section of the nucleus and are measured in Barnes. These concepts are central to the nuclear-related hypothesis that you are proposing.
QUESTION: Do you have any objection to the concept of the concrete being heated up to, say 2500 def F by neutron scattering, which is the minimum temperature to create the tiny iron spheres and which would support the super-heating of the water into high pressure steam.
Any temperature lower than this would reduce the possibility of producing the tiny iron spheres that were found in the dust. As I see it, if the concrete were significantly cooler than 2600 deg F, the tiny iron spheres could not be created,
What are your thoughts ... I know that you've considered the FGNW from every perspective possible.
x453 Maxwell C. Bridges : my previous comment was in error
2019-12-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, thank you for the unearned complement that I've "considered the FGNW from every perspective possible", but regrettably I haven't. Possibly the only claim to fame afforded me is pointing out that leaders of AE9/11Truth [including you until now] didn't give FGNW ~any~ consideration, didn't review all of the evidence, have no explanations for most of the really anomalous evidence, completely malframed nuclear devices in their dubious brush-off's, and have been propping up the limited hang-out of NT.
To your point, my previous comment was in error when I wrote "the neutrons passed right through the concrete leaving energy behind and acted on things within: steel rebar, water molecules, and aggregate things mixed in."
My point was that the highly energetic neutrons would react most exuberantly with things within the concrete, from steel rebar to aggregates, and of course trapped water molecules.
I honestly don't know the molecular make-up of sand and other filler in the concrete, nor how much energy they would absorb. Owing to this, my objection is more of a hair-split "to the concept of the concrete being heated up to, say 2500 def F by neutron scattering." Definitely, things within the concrete may have achieved this.
About all I can point to is some anomalous evidence [most obvious in Dr. Wood's collection] like the "9/11 meteorite" [which is the phrase you could put into Google.]
https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11%20meteorite...
Allow me to extend an earned complement to you. I appreciate your willingness to study evidence brought forth in support of the FGNW premise and to ask meaningful questions. They get me thinking and help me modify my views. If I didn't thank you for the graph you found on neutron absorption, then I do now.
//
x454 Wayne Coste : approximately 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed by the concrete in a floor
2019-12-23
Maxwell Bridges Pardon the slow response, it is a busy time of year.
First, I think with the way that neutrons interact with other nuclei that your clarified comment is still not accurate,
"My point was that the highly energetic neutrons would react most exuberantly with things within the concrete, from steel rebar to aggregates, and of course trapped water molecules."
What you say may be significant for a microwave oven, but I don't believe it applies to energetic neutrons.
But the larger issue is that your hypothesis suggest far too much energy would have been released within the area of each tower to match the observations.
Please correct me if I get something wrong, but your hypothesis assumes that neutron scatter heats up the concrete by 2500 deg F - which is hot enough to melt some steel and produce the tiny iron spheres that was found in the WTC dust by various researchers.
From what I understand, a single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete.
Using the standard formula, for thermal heat required, Q = m*C*deltaT, this suggest that the energy to heat up the 212,500 cubic yards of concrete would be 174,706,875 BTU/ per tower/ per degF.
For a temperature rise of 2500 deg F, this would require the input of 436,767,187,500 BTU.
For comparison the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was approximately 54,973,392,960 BTU of energy.
According to your parameters, each tower would require the energy equivalent of approximately 8 Hiroshima bombs per tower. This heat equation neglects heating office contents and the steel.
I think my calculations are correct.
Why this is important for you to ponder seriously is that this is only the energy that you assert was present to destroy (ablate) the concrete. Without a doubt, there would be stray energy.
The resulting concrete power at 2500+ degrees F would be heating the adjacent atmosphere and the superheated air would rise in a manner similar to a nuclear weapon's mushroom cloud (or at the very least the plume from a very, very, very large powerplant's smokestack).
Lastly, as noted in this graph, approximately 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed by the concrete in a floor ... this means the neutron energy impacting the next floor slab above would only be 10% of the energy impacting the floor below it. The second slab above would only receive 1% of the initial slab. The third slab above would receive 0.1% of the energy of the initial slab. What this means is that if there were one device for each 10 floors (an it was neutron scattering / heating that did the damage) the observed damage would clearly show diminishing energetic destruction for each floor slab above the FGNW.
gotta get ready for more holiday stuff now ... chat later.
x455 Maxwell C. Bridges : Energy and heat are not be same thing
2019-12-23
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, No need for apologies on delayed responses, particularly when contemplation and research are demonstrated in the response and generally aren't present with shoot-from-the-hip emotional instant responses [the norm for FB.]
Correcting you where you are wrong, my hypothesis does ~not~ state "that neutron scatter heats up the concrete by 2500 deg F." Energy and heat are not be same thing.
My hypothesis states that highly energetic neutrons from multiple FGNW were targeted to mostly go through the content of the towers, but grazed inner core steel and outer wall assemblies in places. The material composition of the various content would determine how much energy is absorbed.
The dense molecular structure of metals would indicate a greater propensity to absorb more energy from the passing-thru neutrons than other less dense molecular structures, like sand, filler, water, etc. The tiny iron spheres found in the dust and probably created from the (1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite) steel deck, trusses, and rebars of the concrete floors indicates already the amount of energy they absorbed and minimum temperatures required.
Paraphrased from Dr. Gsponer:
- Because most of the energy of a DT-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation. This implies a coupling coefficient ... that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons.
- The combined surface and volume heating effects of a 1 ton FGNW detonated 1 meter away from any solid target leads to an energy deposition of about 1 kJ/cm^3 in the first 10 cm of any material. ... [W]hile a 1 ton chemical explosion 1 m away from a 10 cm thick steel plate will barely damage it, a 1 ton FGNW explosion at the same 1 m distance will burn a 1 m^2 hole through it.
Let's assume correct your figure of 160k cubic meters of concrete per tower.
Your first and most damning fallacy in your calculations is the assumption that the totality of 160k cubic meters of concrete was affected or hit by the FGNW. This leads to a gross over-estimation of the energy. Classic "garbage in, garbage out." [Deja vu with the Dr. Jenkins ambush of Dr. Wood.]
Dr. Jones made a big deal to point out that the dust analysis didn't just have fine particles (that is in itself a huge energy sink), it also had course particles. Because the output of a single device is a cone aimed with one edge along the spire, the footprint zapped an individual floor was an oval, which was larger on floors further from the FGNW ignition. The oval on some floors may have left areas in corners with unzapped concrete; however, lower FGNW and the fall to the ground would have an opportunity to break such remainder. The point is, the FGNW would not have been responsible for zapping the entire 160k cubic meters of concrete in a tower.
The second fallacy is the assumption that concrete would absorb the equivalent energy as steel, or metal in general. [Paraphrased from other sources as a reference.] Ordinary concrete of a density (Sigma = 2000 - 2600 kg/m^3), is a mixture of cement, coarse and fine aggregate, water and eventually additives and admixtures that are set by cement hydratation. [Usually for shielding barrier a heavyweight concrete (Sigma > 2600 kg/m^3) is used. It is obtained by addition of heavy components (mainly aggregate and fillers) like basalt, magnetite, barite, limonite, iron and metal, ash and slag.] "Dose consequences were found to be 29-72% higher using realistic, measurement-based composition as input compared to the use of a nominal concrete composition, given by the manufacturer. This discrepancy is mainly attributed to the generally neglected contribution of trace elements."
You wrote: "[A]s noted in this [MCNP Calculation] graph, approximately 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed by the concrete in a floor."
I disagree.
Factoid: WTC tower floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches (or just over 10 cm) of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck.
For the sake of discussion, let us assume from your NCNP Calculation graph that (a) the blue-triangles represents concrete [3.2 g/cm^3] designed for neutron shielding and (b) the red-circles represents concrete [2.2 g/cm^3] closer to nominal composition given by the manufacturer.
Therefore in theory, 10 cm of the (red-circle) concrete of the first floor zapped by the FGNW would attentuate only 60% of the neutron dose, not the 90% that you claim.
However in practice with the actual measured composition having 24-72% discrepancy in dose consequences, that first floor (10 cm) probably maybe attenuated only 17-45% of the original neutron dose, and is further away from your suggestion of 90%.
A third fallacy may be in using the MCNP Calculation graph about a standard neutron dose versus shielding thickness. The WTC was not optimized in the least for neutron shielding in terms of barrier thickness and atomic composition, let alone the neutron energy involved with the FGNW.
You mentioned during your (incorrect) calculations about heat from such an event, from rebar ablating and causing instantaneous concrete spalling, to concrete micro-fractures from trapped water molecules turning to high-pressure steam. All of this would have put heat into the surrounding air. As part of Dr. Wood's collection, first responders going across the bridge recall feeling an increase in the ambient temperature the closer they got to the WTC.
Something else I should mention. Inspired by findings from "Tritium on Ice", deuterium pellets are the rage for modern nuclear weapons. An assumption that I've made is that each FGNW ignited the neutron output for a micro-second and then stopped. This assumption might be incorrect, whereby the ignition could have a duration [whether or not injected pellets accomplishes it]. A duration in the tenths of a second changes the behavior of targeted material.
This makes for a mighty fine discussion, Mr. Coste. I appreciate how your analysis causes me to do more research and hone in further on what probably went on.
===== Begin Research
Sources:
- https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12794
- https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/199/3/032056/pdf
- https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/eng.2012.2.issue-2/s13531-011-0063-0/s13531-011-0063-0.pdf
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
===== End Research
// [mcb Part 1/2]
+++
[mcb Part 2/2]
Your BTU gross over-estimate gave me the feeling of "deja vu". It seemed very similar to a discussion -- a late-night video ambush in a hotel's conference room -- between Dr. Greg Jenkins (a colleague of Dr. Steven Jones) and Dr. Judy Wood.
Dr. Wood observed the existence and final moments of "the spire" from one perspective, and said that it vaporized owing to how it seemed to disappear in a cloud of dust. [Had she studied other perspectives, she would have concluded that the spire accordian'ed and fell over, albeit something ignited from underneath could very well have initiated the final moments of the spire. Consider that a disinfo point against Dr. Wood that she still holds and promotes the spire falling as evidence of "steel vaporizing".]
Dr. Jenkins in his ambush started with factual words similar to yours, Mr. Coste: "a single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel." He had ready at his disposal the energy required to vaporize a single kg of steel (solid thru liquid to a gas) and naturally after multiplying by 90M kg arrived at some obscenely huge number, that if expressed as a temperature, would have been the equivalent or greater than that on the surface temperature of the sun. Consider this a disinfo point against Dr. Jenkins. [This is where he reminds me of you, Mr. Coste.]
Within the collection of pictures in Dr. Wood's work, the wall assemblies were well represented, as were inner-core. For letting her premise get malframed as "~all~ steel was vaporized," and for not clarifying after the fact for what steel was vaporized and what was not, more disinfo points against Dr. Wood. [Further disinfo points against Dr. for letting her premise get framed as "beams from space," assuming vehicles towed to bridge were damaged at the bridge, stating firetruck engine vaporized, and shitty research into nuclear methods, etc.]
Outside of his ambush, Dr. Jenkins collected further disinfo points in his discussion of how vehicle fires happened along West Broadway and the adjacent parking lot. He said the dust particles may have been mildly conductive. He wants us to believe that a sufficient amount of this conductive dust made its way into vehicles -- like caking itself between the two battery terminals -- and shorted circuits causing the vehicle fires.
Amazing what one sees when two disinfo agendas collide.
// [mcb Part 2/2]
x456 Wayne Coste : can you provide more clarity
2019-12-23
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: I'm sorry If I'm confused, but in your earlier comments you provided this image which suggested one FGNW detonations (or ignitions) about every 30 floors.
Now you are saying that they needed to be about 1 meter distance to do the damage, "[W]hile a 1 ton chemical explosion 1 m away from a 10 cm thick steel plate will barely damage it, a 1 ton FGNW explosion at the same 1 m distance will burn a 1 m^2 hole through it. "
From the inclusion of this statement, it sounds like you need probably a dozen or more FGNW on each floor that destroy a portion of the concrete ("burn a 1 m^2 hole" ).
Because you assume a fission trigger is necessary (subject to a minimum critical mass) this is an insanely large amount of energy.
Because you will disagree with what I wrote, can you provide more clarity on what you exactly mean? I'm having trouble resolving the conflicts in what I hear you say and the implications of what you say.
Thanks in advance.
But please, refrain from stories about dis-info, we are talking math, science, numbers and calculations here.
x457 Maxwell C. Bridges : "insanely amounts of energy"
2019-12-23
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Indeed, it appears that my poor PaintBrush skills are the culprit in your confusion, although my accompanying text at the time mentioned more devices per level. Here is an amended version of the image that shows four devices per detonation level.
I suppose another source of confusion is that my beliefs and understanding do change when confronted with new information, such as our important detours into concrete spalling and neutron shielding by concrete.
You quoted me, who was paraphrasing from Dr. Andre Gsponer's example. Aren't you impressed with the difference between a chemical explosion and the equivalent rated FGNW?
Meanwhile, that example about energy transmission had nothing to do with my hypothesis, or it stating or implying there was a requirement of 1 m distance. The hypothetical example from Dr. Gsponer chose 1 ton; the 1 ton rating has nothing to do with my FGNW hypothesis. I suspect a higher rating but still in the sub-kiloton range.
Based on your extrapolation of 1 ton, your calculated conclusion that a dozen or more FGNW would be needed on each detonation floor is precisely the reason why that nuclear yield of 1 ton is too low for the dialed-in FGNW of 9/11. Thank you for ruling that out for us.
Your comment about the fission trigger giving off "insanely amounts of energy." First of all, just like a power plant doesn't use its fission for destructive means, the FGNW fision trigger for fusion doesn't either. But, yeah, that energy as heat is needed for fusion. The WTC tower destruction exhibits an elephant-in-the-room tell: "insanely amounts of energy" was exhibited in the overkill destruction.
Logistics of chemical-based explosives is one factor of many that suggests the boots-to-the-group operatives would not schlep & wire in overkill amounts, particularly if the propaganda is going to be arguing "plane impacts and gravity" later. The lesser amounts chosen and implemented would help with their story. Overkill amounts of chemical-based explosives would be very loud, and would not help with their story.
When the FGNW have "insanely amounts of energy," then observed overkill is a side-effect.
In conclusion through our discussions, my FGNW beliefs have morphed into four FGNW devices per ignition level, because such a configuration allow for the spire anomaly. Our previous discussion about nuclear dose and shielding brought up questions in my mind regarding the effective range (e.g., how many concrete floors). Mr. David Chandler's video analysis of the upper stories of one of the WTC towers hints at the range: less than 20 floors.
//
x458 Maxwell C. Bridges : Not completely fleshed out.
2019-12-23
A hypothesis seed. Not completely fleshed out.
Will be updating this article.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
//
x459 Wayne Coste : reframe and clarify your hypothesis
2019-12-23
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Please do. I tried to make sense out of your last post (in relation to other things you've said in previous posts), and couldn't.
It would be helpful for you to reframe and clarify your hypothesis. Issues that I'd like to see you address are:
1. Your assertion that the primary damage is within 1 meter of FGNW detonation
2. That a FGNW used a fission trigger (which also requires a large conventional charge for compression). Both of these cannot be silent and there are no sounds in the audio record to support fission ignitions - let alone fission triggers for FGNW).
3. That the FGNW detonation would produce neutrons where 90 percent of the energy would be absorbed in the first concrete slab -- leaving only 10 percent of the FGNW energy for the next slab up, leaving only 1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.01 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up etc.
I posed questions in previous comments also.
I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis.
x460 Maxwell C. Bridges : your misconceptions cleared up
2019-12-23
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Rest assured that from these very discussions, important concepts will be rolled into my "2020 FGNW 9/11 Opus." Alas, I'm not paid to post or to write my hypothesis (or play on Facebook), and in my free-time, I don't always feel up to fleshing out the direction or details that my hypothesis needs to go. Time-sucking Facebook is a major culprit in my procrastination, with the most recent evidence being this very comment. Oh, my! El-oh-el.
You don't have to wait for my opus to have your misconceptions cleared up.
Misconception 1. [MCB's] assertion that the primary damage is within 1 meter of FGNW detonation.
I never asserted this, and this is the second time you have purposely twisted an example meant to show comparisons of energy: chemical-based explosives versus FGNW. The paraphrased example from Dr. Gsponer was not applicable to 9/11, neither for the actual ton rating of the FGNW nor for its placement. It is applicable to 9/11 when scaled properly to explain why FGNW is more plausible than chemical-based explosives.
Misconception 2. That a FGNW used a fission trigger (which also requires a large conventional charge for compression). Both of these cannot be silent and there are no sounds in the audio record to support fission ignitions - let alone fission triggers for FGNW).
The elements and decay elements of fission undeniably measured in the dust by USGS is what suggests that fission was involved. Yes, my theory is that a conventional shaped-charge was used to initiate the fission process.
Agreed that this starter charge would not have been silent, but it was a shaped-charged and wasn't using the medium of air to transmit its energy; it was audible but muted. Once the fission process started, its nature doesn't have to suggest loudness. [The fission process is not used to change air pressure to destroy, which would be loud. The fission process creates the heat for fusion. Is fission loud at nuclear power plants?]
An embedded misconception is your claim: "there are no sounds in the audio record to support (fission ignitions.)" Yes, there are. I posted in these discussion a video of the camera guy being run over by the dust cloud to illustrate camera scintillation and real-time evidence of radiation (ba-da-bing.) The early part of the same video captures from ground level a tower being taken down, complete with "boom-boom-boom" in the audio.
September Clues is correct that imagery (and audio) manipulation did happen; there are lots of video recordings with missing or altered audio.
First responders talked about hearing regular explosions, and it was in a cadence they could mentally count -- "boom boom boom". It was not a machine gun [every floor], but every 5th or 10th floor.
A related side-note to AE9/11Truth and their promotion of NT. NT (mixed with something having brisance to created the observed pulverization) would ~not~ have been silent and would have been louder than my FGNW hypothesis for energy transfer reasons alone.
So the more you promote the muted audio signatures of 9/11, the more you rule out NT and rule in FGNW. Keep it up, and thank you for the assist.
// part 1/2
Part 2/2
Misconception 3. That the FGNW detonation would produce neutrons where 90 percent of the energy would be absorbed in the first concrete slab -- leaving only 10 percent of the FGNW energy for the next slab up, leaving only 1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.01 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up etc.
"Misconceptions embedded within misconceptions." Let me set aside that this exact 90% false argument has already been addressed in another thread under this same posting. Let us set aside that it looks deceitful that you didn't read my rebuttal that advanced the discussion to a new level and put the ball squarely back into your court on your faulty analysis. [Maybe you missed the FB notification that you had been mentioned in the comment. It happens.] Let's ignore that you chose the wrong grade concrete (3.2 g/cm^3 instead of 2.2 g/cm^3) in coming up with the fictitious 90% absorption in the first 10 cm concrete slab.
You brought into the discussion a logorithmic plotting of percentage transmission of fission neutron dose against shielding thickness in cm. You have yet to explain what "Neutron Dose" is. This is important and could determine whether or not this graph is even relevant to the discussion. That is your task, not mine.
Energy and duration are key.
Misconception: Owing to how 1st thru 3rd generation nuclear devices typically operate -- sudden and instantaneous ignition, energy release, then cool down --, it is easy to associate this with FGNW. The very concept of tritium pellets (from the book "Tritium on Ice" and the USA's nuclear policies) implies nuclear weapon's techniques not just to limit the magnitude of the release but also to prolong the duration of the release or to create a pulsed-release.
I suspect that this MCNP calculation is not relevant for energies of the "neutron dose" at or around the energies needed to deform, melt, or vaporize the material of the shielding.
I have no idea what the energy release duration of a single tritium pellet would be in a FGNW. Whether achieved by a single tritium pellet or through pulsing (more pellets), an energy release duration in the tenths of a second for a single FGNW would literally "blow right through your graph". Regardless of whether we use 60% or 90% neutron absorption for the 10 cm of lightweight WTC concrete in the first slab, the energy involved are huge and instantly create the effects known as ablating and spalling. Suddenly that slab doesn't exist anymore as a cohesive whole in the path of the neutron beam, and the next slab in the line of fire receives the incident high-energy neutron. This process continues for subsequent concrete slabs until the neutron source consumes its fuel and stops releasing neutrons. Elapsed time is still imperceptible to humans.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/199/3/032056/pdf
"It can be concluded that the neutron and photon shielding properties of any type of concrete depend strongly on the particle type, ENERGY, as well as the material density and atomic composition. In order to select an appropriate concrete as shielding material, all this parameters should be considered thoroughly."
You wrote: "I posed questions in previous comments also."
I answered those already and had tagged you.
You wrote: "I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis."
Glad that my clarifications above came promptly, so you didn't have to wait for my forthcoming opus.
As for a consistent hypothesis? Where my FGNW hypothesis is ~inconsistent~ would take some nuclear physicists working on weapons or military nuclear weapons experts to explain details... without such an act triggering strict non-disclosure agreements having penalties of treason. Other smart people who studied physics more recently as part of some degree and without NDAs can help refine important nuclear details.
Where my FGNW hypothesis already ~is~ consistent? It explains a much wider spectrum of (anomalous) evidence than NT has, because NT cannot. [Ho-hum: meteorite, arcs, steel doobies, duration of under-rubble hot-spots, spalling-to-dust of concrete, vehicle damage on West Broadway and car park.]
Whereas you can rightfully chide me for the missing-in-action (in-progress) review of your dust analysis (web page) as part of my 2020 FGNW 9/11 opus, no need to hold your breath! Right here in Facebook under a posting relating directly to your work and within the first 12 top-level comments, you were tagged, dear Mr. Wayne Coste. Section-by-section from your work, each comment addressed specific concerns on various pillars in your work that your beliefs rest on, and if found shakey, ought to inspire a re-assessment of beliefs and maybe changes in tune. Do you have the capacity to acknowledge the conflicts and the mistakes (in your work)? Can you change your mind?
So next week when I am skiing and cannot further this particular discussion, remember that those other balls have been sitting in your court for quite some time now, love. "I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis."
In fact, let us prioritize which ball you hit first on your to-do list. I posted two NIST videos of the WTC steel in the scrap yards. Between the two videos, I identified four time-stamps. Your task is to hypothesize and scientifically speculate how NT would have been positioned in the towers to achieve those anomalous samples depicted at the time stamps. And if impossible or improbable or illogical from a logistics, auditory, or any other point of view, then please perform your service to truth by acknowledging this also. Let's see how objective that you can truly be.
The other balls in your court, the other top-level comments on specific sections of your work? Work through them one at a time next week without fear of me interrupting. Do it at your pace, and there'll be a ton of acceptable excuses for not finishing. The problem you face is that if you continue to ignore the valid criticism of your work that you requested (quoted in the posting that anchors this), this weakness grows in its ability to ding your work, your sincerity, and your character.
Certain depth and pattern are emerging.
I appreciate the opportunities our discussion affords me in learning things that I did not know before, and being able to apply them properly to my FGNW hypothesis. {Spalling and neutron transmission absorption, oh my!)
// part 2/2
x461 Chris LaPonsey : struck a nerve
2020-01-10
https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=644582302746019¬if_id=1578660953004306¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
2020-01-10
Chris LaPonsey
Chris LaPonsey Damn Max you must have struck a nerve cause they got rid of your post.
x462 Maxwell C. Bridges : algorithms determine
2020-01-10
Dear Mr Chris LaPonsey, I don't follow, "got rid of my post"? When active comments peter out, fb algorithms use that to determine whether or not it should appear in various feeds. //
x463 Maxwell C. Bridges : your last comment to any of the threads under this posting was last year
2020-01-10
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your last comment to any of the threads under this posting was last year. Given that the posting itself and the first 10 or so threads under it related directly to YOUR work and your no-nukes premise and those threads took YOUR premise apart section by section, you owe it to your premise and your reputation to defend it legitimately, properly, and fairly.
... Unless, of course, your premise isn't genuine and you aren't sincere, which would be the logical conclusion from any latter-day lurker-readers of your "performance" here.
Let me assure you, my treatment of the topic and your work isn't finished. And your lackadaisical efforts to address any of the major section criticisms is not going to go away. No. It'll be expanded into other internet realms and won't be left to FB's algorithms to push out of the way. Consider this the rough draft that we are still honing. But if left in this present raw form, the assessment of you won't be positive. Hence this ping notification so that you can "pull your failing grade up."
//
x464 Wayne Coste : say whatever bad things you want about me
2020-01-10
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Please say whatever bad things you want about me. I actually don't care what you post -- or what your opinion is of me.
With that said, I thought you were going to create a new comprehensive document that covered everything related to your FGNW hypothesis.
I stopped responding here because it appeared you were contradicting yourself from post-to-post and I never knew what you meant.
Please post your complete theory that, I expect, is not internally contradictory.
x465 Maxwell C. Bridges : wrong impression on several fronts
2020-01-10
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I apologize for having given you the wrong impression on several fronts. First and foremost, you seem to be chomping on the bit to get my 2020 FGNW Opus.
The bad news is that this opus has not suffered enough procrastination while the missing pieces percolate in my mind. Worse news is that the opus won't be presenting a significant amount of new information, except analysis of AE9/11Truth's "nuclear blasts" and your work, and wordsmithing and organization changes.
However, the good news is -- if you have been reading my old FGNW blog postings -- you already know where my opus is heading, the material that it will re-purpose, and the references that substantiate it! Yeah!
The really good news is that our efforts here -- my first 10 or so comments under the posting about your "no-nukes" premise -- analyzes that very premise, section-by-section. So although Facebook has been a distracting time-suck, the sucked-out-of-me labors built the framework for the chapters in my opus on your work. You've helped me hone my FGNW position. [Thank you!]
... And if you take these earnest attempts at rational discussion in a serious manner... "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste. ... OCD-me, oh my! I'm a serious debate opponent on this FGNW hobby-horse of mine, and come prepared."
You wrote: "I stopped responding here because it appeared you were contradicting yourself from post-to-post and I never knew what you meant."
Maybe the above is one of the fronts where I gave you the wrong impression.
Except I wrote a two part novelle not only addressing your misconceptions, but also encouraging you to use the end-of-year holiday time and this FB forum to defend your work.
+++ begin quote
Whereas you can rightfully chide me for the missing-in-action (in-progress) review of your dust analysis (web page) as part of my 2020 FGNW 9/11 opus, no need to hold your breath! Right here in Facebook under a posting relating directly to your work and within the first 12 top-level comments, you were tagged, dear Mr. Wayne Coste. Section-by-section from your work, each comment addressed specific concerns on various pillars in your work that your beliefs rest on, and if found shakey, ought to inspire a re-assessment of beliefs and maybe changes in tune. [...]
So next week when I am skiing and cannot further this particular discussion, remember that those other balls have been sitting in your court for quite some time now, love. "I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis."
In fact, let us prioritize which ball you hit first on your to-do list. I posted two NIST videos of the WTC steel in the scrap yards. Between the two videos, I identified four time-stamps. Your task is to hypothesize and scientifically speculate how NT would have been positioned in the towers to achieve those anomalous samples depicted at the time stamps.
+++ end quote
You wrote: "Please say whatever bad things you want about me. I actually don't care what you post -- or what your opinion is of me."
This is precisely one of the fronts where I may have given you the wrong impression.
I don't need to write "bad things about you." Your "no-nukes" work is on trial. Badness found therein and not addressed, reflects on you and your reputation. Your defense of your work and overall performance here?
Repeating your words: "I stopped responding here because it appeared you were contradicting yourself from post-to-post and I never knew what you meant."
On second viewing in context, this is a clever weasel move, if not a lie. I've been actually fairly consistent with the exception of where our discussions modified my understanding; as a sincere and rational thinker, I'm allowed to evolve.
What has been consistent with you has been an ability to mischaracterize and malframe statements from me. Post-to-post, it was not "me contradicting myself" but instead "me contradicting your purposeful misunderstanding."
You wrote that you don't care what ~my~ opinion is of ~you~. Fair enough, and vice versa. But what you should really care about is the opinions of lurker-readers who discover this conversation [here & elsewhere.] So far, I'm sure "weasel" comes to their minds even before I psy-op name-dropped it in this hypnotic assertion. And then that valid character assessment blurs into "insincerity" and "not discussing in good faith", and begins to reek of agency agenda-toting.
Becomes a rather solid data point. Your concern should be the trend line any astute reader would draw from this data point to your data points in other 9/11 realms (Pentagon, Shanksville).
Questions asked before: Do you have the capacity to acknowledge the conflicts and the mistakes (in your work)? Can you change your mind?
The actions of agents as more of an "inaction" or fall-thru default provide answers to these questions with "no." Whereas it may take me real-time weeks to experience the totality of your "inaction" in defending your premise, lurker-readers (here and where this discussion gets re-purposed) won't have to suffer for nearly as long to come to their conclusions.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment