Although I was in exile from Truth & Shadows, I was able to check in from time-to-time. I caught passages written by others worthy of preservation and response. Alas, my responses were written but had to wait for publication and exposure until now, except what could reach participants through email.
Expand All Chapters / Hide All Chapters
Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections
Chapter 1: Truth & Shadows from Exile
WordPress went on a censuring spree and de-commissioned Mr. Craig McKee's Truth & Shadows. He was given the opportunity to download his data and re-purpose in a blog hosted elsewhere. TruthAndShadows.wordpress.com became TruthAndShadows.com. When the URL is changed accordingly, most links take you to the proper article. However, the comment numbers that were valid for WordPress and part of my URLs, are not valid in the new environment.
x2 Daniel Noel : drawing 9/11 activists to this truth
2018-01-02
January 2, 2018 at 4:19 pm
A few good points, thank you. Indeed, much energy has been spent over the proposition that F77 hit the Pentagon as advertised. It is unfortunate that the 9/11 analysts who argue either side of it spend little energy arguing the importance of drawing 9/11 activists to this truth. What problem are causing the 9/11 scholars who defend the erroneous position? Assuming the false belief they promote would be marginalized, what opportunity would appear? What would be its impact on 9/11 activism? On the world at large? Would there exist some other 9/11-related enigma that would be easier to solve and would carry a bigger impact? The answer to these questions would justify—or not—fanning the argument until the correct viewpoint would prevail.
Love,
x3 David Hazan : demanding the truth
2018-01-02
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 2, 2018 at 9:30 pm
As long as people, truthers, private citizens keep mistaking their main responsibility of demanding the truth with actually having to discover and prove the truth, especially when 99.9% of them are not trained in any of the required specialized subjects for proper scientific analyses, we shall always be “seeking” the truth and never finding it… Let alone ultimately using the said “truth” against the perps.
When, in the land of most advanced science and scientists and supercomputers, we’ve had to have a physics instructor to prove the towers’ free fall using a classroom physics “toolbox” to state what is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think, I’d say our main problem as a society is not really not knowing what happened, but more like not wanting to know what happened.
As far as the impact of “knowing” on the 9/11 activism and the world at large.. I feel that these are false concerns and misplaced priorities, similar to the bizarre concern over being embarrassed should the government produce footage of a 757…. I’d say energies would be much better spent if we were to have a ‘movement” to demand this footage. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would be thrilled if the truth finally came out even if I had a giant egg on my face. But I’m not holding my breath… we are light years away from such a thing happening.
x4 Maxwell Bridges : feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully
2018-01-02
{mcb: These are two versions of an email ~not~ sent to Mr. Mckee.}
Dear Mr. McKee,
I hope that you enjoyed your holidays and have a good start into the new year.
I was well into composing an end-of-the-year email to you when two things happened. Mr. David Hazan posted his wonderful comment. And I learned about http://www.911history.de and how close & parallel (& in some ways further along) it is to my own FGNW premises.
At any rate, Mr. Hazan wrote many fine words about the Pentagon discussions and its participants, many of which could be applied to FGNW.
For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either to come to an agreement, or to ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.
...
Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.
Yes, exactly! Apply the above to FGND!
You wrote yourself in your last correspondence (2017-09-29):
Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these [nuclear 9/11] hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing "disinformation."
This game is right out of the 25 rules of a disinformationalist. Notice how the field of battle has been shifted from the merits/demerits of the actual premise, assumes it is disinformation, and parries into accusing you of allowing disinformation. And a good portion of that criticism/pressure would come at you off-forum.
It would be one thing to then and there prove something wrong with specifics and/or substantiating links and have leeway to justify calling it "disinformation." It is quite another to have hypnotic suggestion and nothing else as to the disinfo label. [This is why "conspiracy" brand Dr. Fetzer is so important to the PTB. His "get-out-of-assassination" strategy -- similar to Alex Jones -- is to embrace as wide a spectrum of conspicy theories as possible and to have several bad disinfo premises (like NPT @ WTC, holograms) to discredit himself and by association all other conspiracy premises in his stable of hobby-horses.]
Dr. Fetzer's embracing of 9/11 having nuclear components is both good news and bad news for me. The good news is that the topic has become important enough with enough details collected by others to merit having it steered by an agent. The bad news for me is that association with Dr. Fetzer gives it a black eye.
Mr. Hazan added the following quote to his posting on your blog.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky
You were kicked out of 9/11 Blogger for the Pentagon stance; I was not even granted admission when my (unripe) nuclear suspicions were made known to the approving admin.
While it should be true that postulating the existence of FGNW, I offer the paid disinfo agents an attack point. In practice, it is not true. Nuclear 9/11 is the topic they are not allowed to talk about, period. They'll mock it, attack me, but they will never go into specifics, quote from one of my sources, and have a reasoned explanation for why it is wrong. Their attack point is limited to Dr. Gsponer only being able to write "speculative forward-looking" FGNW, not about what is current day state-of-the-art & operational.
In fact, this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.
Among the many fronts and tactics that I'm fought on, I have the NT agenda-defenders, the OCT gravity agenda-defenders, the Woodsian agenda-defenders too stilted to admit she wasn't an end-station, and the mal-framers of nuclear means (e.g., deep underground nukes). If the participants were earnest:
- There would be significantly more alliances and marriages, like Woodsian DEW with nukes (FGNW).
- There would be more rescuing and re-purposing of nuggets of truth.
- There would be more acknowledgment of weaknesses in even our own premises.
- There would be more changing of opinions based on new analysis.
{mcb: This is the second version of an email ~not~ sent to Mr. Mckee.}
Dear Mr. McKee, Two of my super-powers are (1) persistance and (2) being naive & trusting [until given reason not to be.] Obviously, my persistance super-power coupled with being an earnest seeker of Truth has brought my research to FGNW conclusions that I doggedly defend [until given reason not to.] Alas, my second super-power seems to have given you too much benefit of the doubt and misjudged you.
In your last communication with me (2017-09-29), you claimed: "I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates [e.g., on the WTC destruction.]" Exactly how do you prove this concern? Facebook battles. And an obsessive compulsive promotion of no planes at the Pentagon that out-does and overshadows my humble FGNW efforts. Who's the crazy one?
We both are, Mr. McKee. Crazy fanaticals about Truth fighting the nobel online intellectual battles to influence hearts & minds to bring positive change to the world.
[BTW: Here is a major red flag. ~THE~ David Chandler who gave us so many videos of high school physics on 9/11 proving controlled demolition. ~HE~ is the one (with a reputation) given you difficulties as he agenda-defends OCT Pentagon. Well, ~HE~ is also the one given a free-copy of Dr. Wood's textbook in hopes that he would help me debunk it -- good, bad, and ugly (before Mr. Rogue screwed the same pooch) -- and he with the qualifications refused. Why? Again, closer to the truth. He doesn't even go there and with specifics prove it wrong.]
I took a page out of your playbook and spent a couple months in various 9/11 Facebook groups (like Debunkers vs Truthers, Fair and Civil Debates, Andrew Johnson's Woodsian group). Talk about infestation with agents, bots, and multiple personas! To the degree that you received resistance and attacks in your hobby-horse Pentagon area, my FGNW hobby-horse got it worse... but weak, without specifics, nothing to make me doubt.
Is my FGNW disinformation? El-oh-eh, if Dr. Fetzer is practically in that nuclear camp, maybe it is.
Seriously, you can't answer that question, Mr. McKee, and this is the area where I've misjudged you. I thought you more of an objective journalist, an eager learner, and sincere seeker of truth as I am. I was wrong. Given our parallel political outlooks and agreement on so many things [except sports and FNGW], our love of language, and superior abilities in holding rational, reasoned, researched debates, I was hoping for a Franklin-Jefferson style intellectual exchange. You disappoint.
You wrote:
And further, I have gone on record as saying that I think this discussion has become counter-productive. We know the towers were blown up/destroyed, and we know this was not the result of plane impacts and fires. This is what is important to me. I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates. If others wish to focus on these things, then I can't tell them not to.
Your Pentagon hobby-horse is only going to go so far in "spreading this 9/11 truth". The Elephant hobby-horse in the room that would become the hot-button issue to spread the truth like a California wild-fire is (as a starting point) sincere, rational, reasoned discussion of FGNW. The US government needed a threshold of civilian casualties to nudge the American public into supporting its global agenda. Well, 9/11 nuclear anything in the public consciousness is the threshold needed to change things on a large scale.
Because you won't give me a FGNW corner on your respected blog, won't let me participate, banned me out of fear of what my opponents would do, you seem to fit into the "nuclear 9/11 discussion avoidance" camp.
You won't even do FGNW review & critique as a personal favor to me.
But, owning to the weaknesses of my super-powers, I persistently try again. 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.
This is probably less than half the size of my previous work, about 1/3 the sections, and tries to make the prima facie case for FGNW.
I would appreciate any comments, feedback, and criticism that you might have.
Yes, I do probably hope to convince you (a) to publish a form of it after appropriate edits on your blog and (b) to let me defend it as an active participant. At the very least, you'll have a destination for nuclear comments so that the insuing disinfo flame wars won't pollute comments to other postings. At the most, you (and discussion participants) will have validated or debunked legitimately the FGNW premise, as well as many others.
So, Mr. McKee. Did I misjudge your ability to see the truth, to be objective, to be fair, to be a journalist?
I hope you have a wonderful 2018.
// mcb
x5 Adam Ruff : disinformation you should avoid
2018-01-07
ruffadam
January 7, 2018 at 11:42 am
Drew DePalma I am sorry for your loss and yet I am glad to see that you have decided to take on the big lie told to us all on 9/11. I salute you for stepping forward into this struggle for truth and justice. Many of us have acquired over the years a vast knowledge base about the crime of 9/11 and all of us would love to pass on what we know to you and help you and all of humanity destroy the lies surrounding that fateful day so many years ago. You will have to expect to be approached by many good researchers along with many agents of disinformation as you navigate your way to the most dangerous truth in the world, the truth about 9/11.
My recommendation to you Drew is that you stick with A+E at first and learn what you can from them and then begin to carefully branch out from there. Many liars and agents are going to descend upon you Drew to mislead you, discourage you, confuse you, and absorb your time and energy. The reason they will choose you is because you are a 9/11 victim family member and because you are new to the voluminous information about the crime. I can recommend a few really good sources for you to study and warn you about some of the larger disinformation themes surrounding 9/11 but ultimately it is you that must find the way to the truth. That having been said I recommend the following to start you down the right path.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – Best source for Information about the controlled demolition of the WTC towers and building 7.
Citizen Investigation Team – Video – National Security Alert – Best information about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT also has an extensive research forum packed with information.
Cristopher Bollyn – Author and Journalist – Will fill you in a great deal about who did 9/11 and why.
There are many films you should watch about 9/11 I can recommend as well.
People and disinformation you should avoid like the plague:
Judy Wood and directed energy weapon arguments.
Jim Fetzer and mini nuke arguments.
Hologram plane arguments.
Avoid all corporate media information about 9/11 because it is virtually all a lie.
There are many videos out there that promote bogus disinformation which you should avoid. Just ask me and I will give you a few to see and a few to not see.
That should get you started down the right path but I want to again warn you that there is an absolutely massive disinformation campaign in place to thwart the 9/11 truth movement involving thousands of people in media, government, and the truth movement itself has been penetrated by many disinformation operatives. 9/11 truth is VERY dangerous to the powers that be Drew and they will try to stop you, slow you, discourage you, and mislead you in particular. Be warned Drew, this is no joke, they will assign people to you and they may have already approached you. Contact me any time if you want to talk about any of this. My specialty in 9/11 research has to do with the cover-up and the ongoing disinformation campaign so I can help guide you to avoid some major pitfalls along this journey. Good luck to you Drew. Reach me at ruffadam2003@yahoo.com.
*** Note to Craig Mckee – If you can pass this message along to Drew or tell me how I can contact him I would appreciate it and I authorize my phone and e-mail to be given to him. Every new truther should have a few mentors. ***
x6 Maxwell Bridges : shitty advice given to the 9/11 newby
2018-01-08
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Obviously I'm dissatisfied with the shitty advice you gave the 9/11 newby. You wrote:
"People and disinformation you should avoid like the plague:
Judy Wood and directed energy weapon arguments.
Jim Fetzer and mini nuke arguments."
Classic strawman disinformation move, Mr. Ruff. You don't have the objectivity to debunk (or validate) directed energy weapons, be they nuclear or not. Didn't do any research; couldn't be bother to read mine. All you can do is associate a valid premise with players having issues. Dr. Fetzer's market brand is "conspiracy theories" and is how he supplements his retirement income. Dr. Wood was forced into a cul de sac.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has issues. They plug NT left-and-right even when supposedly debunking DEW.
Wrap your mind around this FACT: NT was ~not~ found in the dust everywhere. Period. Go back to your sources and learn.
Three things were found: (1) iron spheres that they attribute to a NT chemical reaction, but that's not the only mechanism that can generate such. (2) Aluminum-Iron flakes. They weren't "energetic". They were a result of the corrision of the aluminum cladding with the steel wall assemblies that (together with the asbestos problem) made the towers white elephants in terms of fixing, giving Silverstein even more motivation to pull an insurance scam. (3) USGS documents not only all of the trace elements of nuclear devices, but also their expected decay. And the exact same report has all the elements of NUCLEAR COVER-UP because these elements were only mentioned in the tables, not any discussion.
Kind of like: the 9/11 Commission report never mentioning WTC-7. The NIST reports on WTC-1 and WTC-2 stopping at the initiation of annihilation but not addressing the anomalies after. The NIST report on WTC-7 averaging together 3 stages of annihilation so they could say the average was slower than free-fall. The EPA telling everyone the air was safe. (Coincidence that neither Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, nor Dr. Fetzer found the public & peer-reviewed work from Dr. Gsponer on FGNW.)
Geez, and Dr. Jones states "something maintain the hot-spots, not just NT." And this was after Dr. Jones back-pedaled and said NT was mixed with RDX (or something else) in order to get the brissance for pulverization. Did he ever provide calculations on amounts required? No. Dr. Harrit did, and the calculated amounts for the iron spheres was obscene. And this is before any calculations into unspent & overkill amounts required to maintain under-rubble hot-spots for months. Can you say "obscenely massive" and a logistics hurdle?
The following has minor issues, but I'm in contact with the author. I'm having my "ah-ha moments" too, learning where I might have been wrong but re-enforcing where I was right. (I'm also pointing out to him where he or his sources were wrong. Example: cars were not zapped at the bridge; they were towed there.)
http://www.911history.de
Got your "radiation = nukes" covered, man. Aside from ailments, we now have on the very scene of 9/11 in the dust clouds that over-ran camera operations evidence of camera scintillation: "A flash or sparkle of light when struck by a charged particle or high-energy photon."
Like clockwork you make an infrequent posting on T&S and beat your chest about what an objective truther would do, yet you yourself screwed the pooch on being able to claim that about yourself in the realm of 9/11 nuclear DEW.
Be mature, reasoned, rational, and objective, Mr. Ruff. Your future options on the nuclear 9/11 subject are: (1) Debunk it legitimately, (2) Validate nuggets of truth, or (3) STFU if you ain't willing to do the work. Otherwise, you contribute to disinformation.
P.S. Ain't nothing wrong with being a bit OCD. Gives me the persistence to discover truth that you lack.
//
x7 David Hazan : enlightening to go back in time
2018-04-12
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
April 12, 2018 at 12:30 pm
We get bombarded, from a million different directions, by news, data points, information, propaganda, analysis and opinion on a daily basis. So much of it that even a very interested person who might invest a great deal of time into trying to process all this information ends up failing to separate wheat from chaff, and connect the dots accurately and correctly in real time. Many moving targets of history move so fast that there is really no time to even understand it before it is already history (and usually too late.) And there are other processes in history that unfold so slowly, we barely notice that it is even moving, let alone guess its direction and destination before it is too late.
In this context, I have always found it very enlightening to go back in time and read news articles, opinion pieces, watch documentaries, revisit predictions of the future that have come to pass, etc. After all, 20/20 hindsight is a beautiful thing.
Thank you, Craig, for this potpourri of mini articles and unfinished thoughts, and for reminding us where we were, what we thought, what came of it (if anything at all.) Cumulatively, these snippets create a great chance to zoom out and have a better perspective of where we came from, and where we might be going, and hopefully learn from it all.
And, in particular, what spoke to me the most is your painful attempt to explain to your loved ones and people around you how you, and myself by association, have not gone mad, lost our screws, ‘gone off the deep end”… Well, come to think of it, I suppose the jury is still out on that one! ;-}]
x8 Craig McKee : looking back can be quite revealing
2018-04-12
Craig McKee
April 12, 2018 at 5:59 pm
David,
I thank you for that thoughtful reaction to this post. Some of these were causing me guilt because I knew I should have been getting the damn things finished and posted. But for whatever reason, I didn’t get them finished. Some of them deserve to be revisited with more comprehensive treatments. The Omar Khadr case is one I must write about again. It’s too bad that some readers will tend to skip something that seems to be a Canadian story. But it could not be more central to the bogus war on terror.
I’m glad you were affected by the last item. I find one of the most difficult things about doing the kind of research we all do is my seeming inability to convince even those closest to me that I’m not either paranoid or imagining things. I find it quite hurtful at times, in addition to being supremely frustrating.
I also agree that looking back can be quite revealing. I must say that what pleases me is being able to look at something I wrote several years ago and feeling like I can stand by it today. I feel that particularly where the Pentagon and its corresponding disinfo campaign is concerned. I think I caught on to deceptions on this subject back in 2010 and 2011, and all that has happened since has only served to confirm that I was on the right track.
x9 David Hazan : not many people share my angle
2018-04-13
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
April 13, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Over the years, I have painfully discovered that not many people share my angle on this, but the way I see it, being “right” has never really been our real problem in seeking the so called “truth”. And when I say “us”, I don’t mean those of us who agree on everything, but those of us who are simply sincere, have critical thinking skills, and most importantly, who have the intellectual cojones to question authority and groupthink.
From the moment I watched the second tower fall in identical fashion with my bare eyes, it was obvious to me that they were brought down on purpose, and by forces way beyond the two planes. And, from the moment we were fed a nicely packaged “Osama’s Nineteen” script within less than 48 hours, it was equally obvious that those who were feeding us the story were the true perpetrators and beneficiaries.
I am not telling this to show you how “right” or how darn smart I was to figure this out in a matter of days, but to actually tell you how bloody stupid and wrong I was in assuming that this lie was so damn blatant and so damn BIG, that it was a matter of weeks or months before it’d all got exposed, and the “people” would be up in arms demanding justice. Ha, fuckin’ ha, eh?
So, our problem was not really being right or wrong about any one aspect of the whole matter, or whether or not we said or wrote what we could have, or took one position over another… We simply failed to see and comprehend the extent to which “they” would go in pushing, covering up and maintaining the lie, their capabilities of social engineeiring and mass manipulation, their methods of subversion and misdirection… We also failed to recognize the size and the scope of the conspiracy. It was neither a “rogue group” in the government, nor the Israelis, zionists, illuminati, nor the three stooges named DubyaDickAndDon, but it was the entire establishment, all members of Nato an its sphere of influence, the UN, all of the oligarchs, the Vatican, the Russians, the Chinese, and every asshole who chose to BELIEVE or stay quiet whether knowingly or not, whether willingly or not.
And perhaps most importantly, we have failed to understand human and crowd psychology and how easily we can be manipulated… Which rendered us our own worst enemy. As Tao put it, understanding yourself is only half of the equation, and understanding the enemy is the other half. As a “group”, we seem to have failed miserably in both.
I hope you won’t find my words patronizing, but I don’t feel Craig McKee has much to worry about in the shoulda woulda coulda department. (perhaps with the exception of still not kissing and making up with HR1 ;-}])
Thank you for your reply, Craig. I really appreciate it.
x10 Elias Davidsson : snippet from T&S Article
7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.
Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored on www.aldeilis.net/fake/616.pdf]). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.
x11 Maxwell C. Bridges : evidence of nuclear components slips out
April 24, 2018 at 9:44 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Mr. McKee and Mr. Davidsson,
Well done on the article.
Although you won’t approve any of my comments, I usually get to see them in the discussion but flagged as being in the moderation queue. Unusually, that didn’t happen when I posted a comment over the weekend, although I do have the comment ID, so something did happen. I wasn’t getting the comments I subscribed to.
Be that as it may, I’ll repeat. The evidence that 9/11 had nuclear components slips out of all official (and 9/11 TM) sources even known disinformation sources (e.g., government reports). Here is a quote where it slips out of your work.
7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.
Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored on http://www.aldeilis.net/fake/616.pdf%5D). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.
What effect would a FGNW have on the human body? With concrete and drywall, it would superheat the residual water to transition immediately into steam, whose rapidly expanding volumetric pressure effectively blows it appart from the insides. The human body would react in a similar manner. Need I remind you of the fragments of body parts that were found on the roofs of adjacent buildings? My latest theory is that a singular but pulsing FGNW could have been dropped down the elevator shaft. Getting such a device up to its steady pulsing at level might have been a significant period of time and could have caused the phenomenon known as “the jumpers.”
Pay attention, Mr. McKee. If you are serious about inspiring public awareness, following and reporting the truth where ever it leads you is an important key. The figurative nuclear fallout could still be experienced today in the halls of Congress and the institutions behind this multi-faceted and complex operation.
// mcb
x12 Maxwell C. Bridges : 10 Irrefutable Devestating 9/11 Facts
2018-04-30
2018-04-30
Mr. Elias Davidsson and Mr. Craig McKee wrote an interesting article, "10 Irrefutable Devestating 9/11 Facts." Here's Number Seven.
+++ Begin Quote
7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.
Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011... U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.
https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/20/10-irrefutable-devastating-9-11-facts
+++ End Quote
Oooo-uh! Oooo-uh! Oooo-uh! *Waving hands frantacally in air* Pick me! *Jumping up and down* I have a logical explanation. In fact, my logical explanation also explains the reason for two different but related disinformation forks: [A] "the hollow towers theory" [Let's Roll Forums] and [B] "SimVictims" [Clues Forum].
The premise of [A] the hollow towers' theory is that a significant number of floors in both towers were never finished off or occupied. Why? Money and the real estate market for office space. Laws of supply & demand dictated how quickly, and if at all, the remaining floors would have been finished. Too much office space availability would have cratered and cannabalized the NYC real estate market. Towards the time when Silverstein was buying control of the complex, reports suggest the towers were under-occupied. Because WTC records were conveniently destroyed on 9/11, we don't really know the occupancy of the buildings throughout their history. [And we do know that WTC was a front and maildrop for many a government company who wouldn't necessarily need completed space.]
Like with Pearl Harbor, a victim count approaching 3,000 was deemed the threshold to sway public opinion into militarily doing whatever the administration desired against "this nation's enemies."
Thus, if the under-occupied WTC is considered a valid nugget of truth from [A], it contributes towards the necessity of [B] the SimVictims theory, which is based on Operation Northwood, rejected by JFK in the 1960's for a false-flag Cuba war. Then and now, innocent victims in the story line help emotionally charge the public, and is easy to stoke by touting the grieving family members (actors) before the media. SimVictims puts aspects of Operation Northwood into the 21st century. Through social media, emotional backstories on a certain number of alleged victims can be created quickly (and prior to the event). Between those heart-wretching backstories and paid-actors for grieving family members, the message is controlled and directed: "For the senseless killing of my (fake) loved one on American soil, let's get those (patsy) bastards (and bomb them back to the stone age while stealing their natural resources)!"
"Extent" and "extremes" in [A] hollow-towers and [B] simVictims contribute to the implosion of their over-arching disinformation vehicles. Namely, [A] hollow towers suggests the extreme that practically nothing except the lobby, sky restaurant, observation deck, and maybe a few strategic floors were ever completed & occupied. [B] The simVictims theory started out strong with many cases of thin social media backstories and instances of photoshop (particularly among the Fire Department and NYPD victims), but then over-reaches and suggests without evidence that ~all~ victims were fake.
High school composition classes taught the lesson to use "extremes" (like "all" or "none") sparingly, because one exception can invalidate the argument. This is in part how [A] and [B] are debunked, but it shouldn't be at the expense of valid nuggets of truth: the towers were under-occupied, and some SimVictims were created.
So why were these [A] & [B] disinformation vehicles created and then deliberately crashed?
Because even as the nuggets of truth from [A] & [B] show deceit in inflating the victim count and reduce the actual victim count, they don't completely eliminate victims or "1,100 persons vanishing without leaving a trace."
Such [A] & [B] disinformation vehicles, however, do distract from the true mechanisms of destruction and how Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) can vanish so many humans.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky
The prima facie case is made for FGNW below.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
With concrete and drywall, it would instantly superheat the residual water to transition immediately into steam, whose rapidly expanding volumetric pressure effectively blows it apart from the insides. In any video of the WTC towers decimation, behold the pulverization and fountaining dust from the earliest moments of demise.
What effect would a FGNW have on the human body?
The human body is mostly made up of water. Heated water turns to steam that tends to expand in volume. Were a human body in the path of highly energetic neutrons from a FGNW, its water would so suddenly & quickly transition into steam that its expanding volume decimates the body instantly into vapor.
Need I remind you of the fragments of body parts that were found on the roofs of adjacent buildings?
My latest theory is that a singular but pulsing-neutron-upwards FGNW could have been dropped down the elevator shaft. Getting such a device up to its steady-pulsing level might have been a significant period of time and could have caused the phenomenon known as “the jumpers.”
To the 9/11 Truth Movement and its Nano-Thermite (NT) Defenders!
Wrap your mind around this FACT: NT was ~not~ found in the dust everywhere. Period. Go back to your sources and learn.
Three things were found:
(1) A high percentage of tiny iron spheres. The NT disinformation suggests that this could only be a by-product of a NT chemical reaction. Wrong. A FGNW would also generate such.
(2) Aluminum-Iron flakes. The NT disinformation suggests these were "energetic". They weren't. They were a result of the corrision of the aluminum cladding with the steel wall assemblies that (together with the asbestos problem) made the towers white elephants in terms of fixing, giving Silverstein even more motivation to pull an insurance scam.
(3) The United States Geological Survey (USGS) study on the dust documents not only all of the trace elements of nuclear devices, including their expected decay elements. And the exact same report has all the elements of NUCLEAR COVER-UP because these elements were only mentioned in the tables, not in any plain-text discussion.
Dr. Jones states "something maintain the hot-spots, not just NT." And this was after Dr. Jones back-pedaled and said NT was mixed with RDX (or something else) in order to get the brissance for pulverization. Did he ever provide calculations on amounts required? No.
Dr. Harrit did, and the calculated amounts for the iron spheres was obscene. And this is before any calculations into unspent & overkill amounts required to maintain under-rubble hot-spots for months. Can you say "obscenely massive" and a logistics hurdle for NT to be the primary mechanism?
Not so for FGNW.
Mr. Craig McKee once wrote:
"Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these [nuclear 9/11] hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing 'disinformation.'"
This game is right out of the 25 rules of a disinformationalist. Notice how the field of battle has been shifted from the merits/demerits of the actual FGNW premise, assumes it is disinformation, and parries into accusing you of a dastardly deed (e.g., allowing disinformation.)
A premise has to be debunked before it can be labeled disinformation. I have given more than a good faith effort among the best-of-the-best the 9/11 Truth Movement has to offer to have FGNW debunked. The "no-shows" and "won't-touch-that-with-a-10'-pole" are as notable as those who spectacularly failed simple integrity tests.
Truth was is FGNW's backstop, and seeps out everywhere.
Pay attention. If you are serious about inspiring public awareness, following and reporting the truth where ever it leads you is an important key. The figurative nuclear fallout could still be experienced today in the halls of Congress and the institutions behind this multi-faceted and complex operation.
//
x13 Maxwell C. Bridges : attracting disinfo bots
2018-05-12
2018-05-12 Email
Dear Mr. McKee,
I haven't been following Mr. \\][//'s blog. Once every other quarter, I might get a hankering to see if anything new is on his blog(s). Long ago I removed all my subscriptions, except for his two homages to me as an "agitprop disinformant." A premonition yesterday suggested I scope out what he's up to (Electronic Media 2018-04-22).
I have come to the conclusion that Craig McKee is a mole, in cahoots with Jim Fetzer.
Wow. Within the subsequent 80 comments, a reader learns from a published confidential email that you saw it and you two had an email exchange.
Deja Vu. In April, I was distracted by work/travel and by a third encounter with a disinfo bot
(PhantasyPublishing), an amusement park attraction first encountered on T&S. I've documented all three encounters here, (Playing Disinfo Games), notable for just a few things (to spare you its tedium). One aspect, in particular having to do with publishing emails (me) and flawed legal bullying (PP) to have their words from emails removed from my blog.
It is coincidentally strange that you and Mr. \\][// would be in a situation involving an email, it being labeled CONFIDENTIAL, and having it published by Mr. \\][// anyway.
From my parallel experience, you don't have any legal footing. You can't one-sided contractually bind an email recipient just by inserting those words. (In my case, efforts from the emails were also lamely put onto their blog, further losing them standing about what is private and public. And then to find that much of their words weren't their words; they were plagiarized by others, sometimes down to the shitty formatting from their copy-and-paste.)
What you have is an integrity test that Mr. \\][// spectacularly failed! His "No Soul" album cover featuring Mr. \\][//'s Tommy-wannabe 1970's handsomeness is just so appropriate. No soul, no morals, no integrity. Socio-path.
+++
A second item to clang the klaxon of paranoia deja vu was Mr. \\][//'s efforts to smear me under a "mole" attack on you. Most striking was his choice of context: exchanges he and I had, starting in 2012 (with new skew added via the re-purposing) and from my Dr. Wood's phase. Most interesting the re-tread treatment. He focuses on when my opinions were still evolving and I hadn't pinpointed the deception in Dr. Wood. He obviously doesn't mention the lie perpetuated for 2-1/2 years of physically destroying Dr. Wood's book in order to avoid a discussion on its good, bad, and ugly. (A pay-it-forward event that became one of my best 9/11 investments, ever.)
Rather glaring that he doesn't go after my more recent 2016-03-11 and 2018-02-11 FGNW work.
He does finally mention Dr. Andre Gsponer, but tries the cheat of future-tense in the language as his sole argument against research directions documented within.
Meanwhile, I've found video evidence of radiation almost as good as Geiger counters on the scene: truth has a way of slipping out.
+++
A third item to clang the klaxon of paranoia deja vu was a turn of phrase that caught my attention. I researched it back, so pay attention to date stamps. Mr. \\][// wrote in July 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm "Maxwell Bridges can’t stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely."
That comment was vacuumed up (along with plagiarized words from others) into a PhantasyPublishing's disinfo bot's database and was sent to me 2016-06-09 in an email during an attempted discussion on my hobby-horse (whose formatting was so poor from copy-and-paste, it indicates more plariarism.) At the time I didn't make the connection PhantasyPublishing was plagiarizing from Mr. \\][//. Once Mr. \\][//'s comment got into its databases, it was re-used again (2018-04-09) in a comment to my blog [now re-formatted to be within the blog article Part 3.] I know that Mr. \\][// likes to copy passages from one blog to another. But it was still quite the surprise to see the exact same quote aimed at me again (2018-04-24) on Mr. \\][// 's blog that leads off calling you, Mr. McKee, a mole.
+++
I mean, why was I being dug up? It isn't as if we have Venn intersections of web site activity the last three years. I haven't been on T&S. He's not on FB. My comments won't get published to his blog. He's only made one comment -- more of a ping for life-signs -- to my blog.
There are trends to be extrapolated.
I'm collecting my negative fan bases. I'm attracting disinfo bots.
Mr. \\][// blogging efforts: [1] "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus", [2] "Maxwell Briges: Agitprop Disinformant", and now [3] "ELECTRONIC MEDIA".
PhantasyPublishing (a bot) blogging efforts (that survive): [3] "9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work" (2018-04-09) and [4] "more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges" (2018-04-09)
Sports fan that you are, Mr. McKee, what's your score in your negative fan bases? Ken Doc gave you at least one.
Although I did it in a joking manner, I think my assessment (among others) of Mr. \\][// being an agent still has merit. I advised at the time "better the devil that you know than the one you don't sense."
I must ask, though. Do you ever sometimes review old blog discussions, but evaluate differently knowing now (e.g., insincerity, agenthood) what you didn't then?
+++
Lessons learned from Dr. Wood, Dr. Fetzer, Dimitri K., and Dr. Jones and experienced myself (on Video Fakery, NPT, DEW, etc. before evolving thought):
- If you are riding the horse wrong or the wrong horse, you get to ride the carousel as long as you like and be a circus distraction.
- If you have purposeful disinformation in your stable, you get a pass for pasturing an occasional truth-pony.
But if you are riding the right hobby-horse right?
If you were "planning to bring (Mr. \\][//) back," then clearly as Mr. \\][//'s proven arch-enemy worthy of smear THREE years after my T&S banishment and SIX years after those Wood discussions, I was not part of those original plans, because I would have been water on his grease flames.
You should ask yourself who else was lobbying for Mr. \\][// to return. Mr. Ruff? Mr. Hazan? etc.
And of those, correlate their lobbying message to advice on handling yours truly and my hobby-horse. "Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large..."
+++
Mr. \\][// wrote:
I don’t see your blog flourishing as it once did. What do you suppose is the reason for that? Why have so many of your loyal fans faded away? I cannot answer that with any certainly. But perhaps you might ponder the situation.
Mr. \\][// is every bit the cheat that he ever was. At one point after 3,000 comments, he made up a third. Remember, though, that he didn't subscribe to the articles comments, which meant that for him to follow a comments thread, he'd have to manually refresh your page over and over. Ca-ching, ca-ching for your hit count. His sock-puppetry wouldn't surprise me. He and AWright, Adam Ruff, Veritable2... "so many of your loyal fans faded away" Persona Management Software would help with page refreshes.
+++
Normally I would ask to be invited back as your plan B, because maybe in truth my departure was the real reason (according to the perceptions from Mr. \\][// ) for your blog supposedly not flourishing. I had loyal fans, too, but alas none were my sockpuppet.
I could only be counted on for minimum one comment per article. It'd be on topic, insightful, well-written, and long. If the discussion was interesting, maybe one comment every other day. In my unpaid internship negotiations, I request that you build exclusively for my hobby-horse a corral where you'll be able direct any and all wannabe rodeo (de)bunkeroos. With that corral, my participation elsewhere will have no reason to get off topic.
Links within a comment are a whole different subject and should have different rules. As one who stands behind his words, any link from a participant to their own words should be permitted. Consider it a relief value and an earnest attempt to pull off-topic discussions to their blog instead of polluting your thread. Remember: it isn't the off-list link that derails threads, but what others choose to drag back.
+++
Not making a mountain out of Mr. \\][//'s "mole" hill, but my exile was right out Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and its Pre-Crime Division. The anticipated over-reaction and bad-behavior of my detractors (now discredited) to just about anything I posted -- no matter how small or insignificant in word count or comment stats -- was ~their~ alleged pre-crime to ~my~ actual banishment.
Mr. \\][// failed your simple integrity test(s), just like he spectacularly failed my objectivity and integrity tests of yore.
Mr. \\][//'s "little buddy" also failed. My continued status in exile and banishment necessitates a review in light of Mr. \\][//'s role in the matter: on your blog, on email, and on his blog(s).
// mcb
x14 Maxwell C. Bridges : loose ends in rememberance
2018-06-25
I was looking into some of my old writings as "Señor El Once" and came across this 2012 T&S article and discussion: one of the few times in recent years when "Trump" and "ignorance" aren't in reference to a sitting US President.
Adam Syed wrote some wise words. Dr. Jones' work took some legitimate bashing by Señor El Once.
It takes on new significance when two players (hybridrogue1 and Mr. A.R.) have been since discredited, the former with a lie maintained for 2.5 years about "violently defacing a book to line a bird's cage" to avoid a rational discussion into the same, the latter with boasts that could be not supported by objectivity, action, research, reason.
This quote from Mr. Craig McKee (2012-09-13) has me asking what happened?
"I very well may write a piece about nuclear hypotheses of Prager and Dwain Deets so there will be a full discussion on that."
https://truthandshadows.com/2012/09/12/ignorance-trumps-ideas-during-annual-911-discussions-a-reluctant-rant/#comment-12574
x15 Maxwell C. Bridges : seed dropping
9/11 Truth was infiltrated and had many stop-gap "theories" & limited hangouts to prevent wide-spread publishing of the true methods deployed: Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW).
Yeah, I've been around the 9/11 block a few times, and duped for a time on theories that I later had to recant and apologize. FGNW isn't one of them.
No sense bogging down this discussion with these details that can still have significant figurative nuclear fall-out with institutions and agencies.
"9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
I've already amassed the evidence and made the case for FGNW.
I'm posting here as a reminder that if Jill Stein's investigation doesn't get to FGNW, we'll know it was compromised.
//
x16 Craig McKee : official story of 9/11 is dead
Craig McKee
September 7 at 6:36 PM ·
The official story of 9/11 is dead, and every day it becomes harder to ignore this fact. With the release of the Hulsey study and the Long Island fire commissioners saying it is "beyond any doubt" that explosives destroyed the three WTC towers, there is no more excuse for not getting this
"Massive columns are being blown up and out. That's not gravity, it's explosvies.
x17 Maxwell C. Bridges : added energy
2019-09-07
Instead of "... it's explosive", you should alter the meme to be "... it's added energy."
Then you'll have bases and a**es covered when the true mechanisms for destruction are sussed out into the likely trend lnie from the many glaring data points that slip out orthogonal from of all government reports and the slickest of 9/11 disinformation vehicles.
//
x18 Craig McKee : No one would react to "added energy."
2019-09-07
No one would react to "added energy." Not in a meme. Anyway, I never said it was only one thing. But I'm pretty confident explosives brought the towers down. And that's enough.
x19 Maxwell C. Bridges : missed this in their research
2019-09-07
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, I'm even more confident that the primary mechanisms of destruction were nuclear in nature. I mean, those championing explosives (and/or NT) cannot even say that such was found in the dust. No.
If you look closely, they say tiny iron spheres were found and then they assume that only NT could create them. The USGS, Paul Lioy et al, RJ Lee Group... none of them measure traces of NT. But USGS does measure Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities sample-to-sample. Dr. Cahill did air quality measurements and detected metals that required a sustaining high energy source to keep generating such. Tritium, tritium, tritium.
Pulverization is a huge energy sink. Aside from the massive logistics hurdles, why would this have been a design goal of NT? And how much would be required and unspent from its original pulverizing purposes to maintain the hotspots?
Nuggets of Truth extracted from Dr. Wood's work are images of arches / sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies. Those proposing explosives cannot even explain how such would be planted / configured to result in such anomalies. Funny how the explanation is so easy and clear with fourth generation nuclear devices... even for the pulverization of concrete and the tiny iron spheres.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
The above is peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal. How is that both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood missed this in their research into 9/11 nuclear devices? This was published technically before Dr. Jones "no nukes" disinformation spin, and then filled the void with NT.
//
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
x20 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE9/11Truth FAQ #13 / FAQ #15 Debunking
2019-10-22
Remember that sincere and objective people are allowed to change their opinions when faced with new evidence or analysis; apologies and admission of errors can go a long way to redeeming reputation.
Vladamir Lenin stated "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Dr. Philip Zelikow, executive directory of the 9/11 Commission demonstrates this premise quite clearly. The EPA, NIST, and USGS, as but a few, were forced into offering incomplete, shoddy, and misleading works relating to 9/11.
Objectively speaking, why would AE911Truth be immune from such infiltrating influences to control the message, even today more than a decade and a half later? They wouldn't be immune, particularly when the public's revelation of 9/11 nuclear involvment can still have far-reaching figurative nuclear fall-out againsts governments, institutions, political parties, and individuals.
Thomas Pynchon wrote: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
FAQ #12: What is AE911Truth's assessment of the directed energy weapon (DEW) hypothesis? [Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage, and Gregg Roberts]
FAQ #13 [& FAQ #15]: Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the WTC destruction. Why does AE911Truth not endorse this claim?
FAQ #12 is aimed at the work of Dr. Judy Wood. Its problem is that it does ~not~ review the work. It offers no quotations or extracts, let alone a detailed objective analysis that would indicate they read the work and debunked it section-by-section. In fact, FAQ #12 spends one-third of its meager ~2,500 word count promoting NT, and ~not~ putting on the DEW shoes and walking around.
Disclaimer: Dr. Judy Wood is disinformation built on a foundation of truth. She drops a lot of dangling innuendo, doesn't connect dots, doesn't draw conclusions, can't power her suspicions with anything real-world, should never have let her work be characterized as "free energy from space" or "beams from space", and did shitty research into nuclear means. And owing to the disinformation agenda, her best & most prolific surrogates in 9/11 discussions can't admit to these weaknesses or that Dr. Wood's work is not an end-station.
Dr. Wood's work, however, has many nuggets of truth that require not only acknowledgement, but also rescue & incorporation into any 9/11 conspiracy theory-du-jour. FAQ #12 does not do this. Glaringly.
The 233 words of FAQ #13 is quite the rabbit-hole entrance, and offers two FAQ #15 PDF paths to its enlightment about "nuclear blasts". The first version has less than 6 pages of text (~5,400 words) and 23 pages of endnotes. The second version changes the 95 endnotes into footnotes whose content appears at the bottom of the page where referenced.
Blinded by science.
The number of footnotes/endnotes gives the aura of completeness and thoroughness.
Except that if you follow the rabbit-hole into the footnote and then further into their sources, a huge discrepancy becomes apparent between what the FAQ #15 footnote addresses and the breadth of information the source references.
Except that some of the sources that attempt to bolster the no-nukes theme have issues themselves [addressed elsewhere in this work] and cannot be re-purposed as the authoritative final word about a particular theme. [Consider this both an issue and "an excuse to change beliefs."]
Except that FAQ #15 has a disingenuous bent scope-limited by the phrase "nuclear blasts".
blast:
- destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outward from an explosion
- an explosion or explosive firing, especially of a bomb.
- a strong gust of wind or air.
- a strong current of air used in smelting.
"Agree with the adversaries quickly, whilst thou art in the way with them..." Matthew 5:25
Indeed. When the framing of the dicussion is "nuclear blasts", it easy to agree with FAQ #15 that "nuclear blasts" were not the primary mechanisms of destruction. Such "nuclear blasts" would certainly have thrown radioactive material great distances, radiated surrounding buildings, and ultimately would have impacted the health of a much larger population in the area, not primarily survivors and first responders. Owing to the "nuclear blasts" needing highly compressed air to spread destruction, they would be very loud.
But this very phrase "nuclear blasts" is very much first- to third-generation nuclear weapons thinking.
Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) thinking says that only 20% of the nuclear yield -- already at sub-kiloton levels -- is divided between the outputs of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Tactical in nature, and really what they are suppress in the yield.
The other 80% of the nuclear yield is in the form of highly-energetic neutrons released in a targeted direction [cone upwards] and passing through all content. It isn't a blast or a bang; it is high amounts of energy suddenly deposited deeply and through out the molecular structure of the content.
How does the content react? Supposition:
- Content with embedded water molecules, like concrete and drywall: the water turns instantly into rapidly expanding steam that blows the material apart. That doesn't mean "sending fragments of the material tens or hundreds of feet." For the sake of discussion, imagine a displacement of a fraction of a millimeter, but this at every molecule in the path of the neutron beam. Dustified.
- Metals: the leading edge catches so much energy, that it ablates so rapidly, it causes a shockwave through the rest of the material that rips it apart. Leads to tiny iron spheres in the dust.
- Humans: lots of water turned instantly into steam. Not a lot remaining for DNA analysis.
The footnotes of FAQ #15 aims attacks at the work of specific individuals who at various points in time championed 9/11 nuclear involvement. However, some were wrong in key aspects that did not match observation of the destructions; those errors were never corrected, and its champions over time did not deviate from their erroneous agenda. [Both Mr. Dimitri Khalezov and Mr. William Tahil championed per tower single underground nukes, although the evidence shows pulverization initiating in the top blocks, progressing downwards, and leaving "a spire" of inner core structure for a few moments.]
x21 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE911Truth "is deliberately saying things it knows are not true"
2019-12-06
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, The first piece of evidence that AE911Truth "is deliberately saying things it knows are not true" is their SHITTY research.
Look at my previous link to the peer-reviewed article from Dr. Andre Gsponer that was published in a reputable scientific journal (Cornell University). Dr. Gsponer had been writing about fourth generation nuclear devices for at least a decade before 9/11. Why did Dr. Jones and AE911Truth purposely and repeatedly leave these devices out of consideration?
AE911Truth tries to debunk ~all~ forms of nuclear weapons being used on 9/11 at the WTC by framing the discussion as "nuclear blasts". While valid for first- thru third-generation nuclear weapons, this "nuclear blast" framing does not apply to FGNW.
AE911Truth's work is a bit wishy-washy in that they use the plural "blasts" because there were at least 2 distinct events (WTC-1 and WTC-2). When it gets into the details, their fraudulent framing turns to a single nuclear detonation per tower, which correctly would have blown badness all of NYC, been louder, etc. and even ~I~ agree does not match what was observed or the evidence.
Why doesn't "nuclear blast" apply to FGNW? Because FGNW -- deviants of neutron bombs -- release 80% of their nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons (in a targeted fashion). Whereas this does travel through air and does heat air molecules, air is not the medium of destruction, which the fraudulent phrasing "nuclear blasts" implies. It wasn't sudden and massive changes in air pressure from a "blast" that caused the concrete to be blown apart.
The more critical effect is in depositing energy / heat deep within the molecular structure of all content through which the neutrons passed. Residual water molecules in content like concrete instantly got turned into steam, whose expanding volume pressure broke that content apart. It wouldn't have necessarily been loud.
Only 20% of the already sub-kiloton total nuclear yield would be evident as standard nuclear side-effects of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.
I read the text of AE911Truth "no-nukes" effort, dived into the footnotes, and followed the trail to the source of those footnotes to validate (or not) AE911Truth's assessment. Their treatment of Mr. Jeff Prager's work is another example of AE911Truth's deceit. In the footnotes, AE911Truth cherry-picks such a small nit from Mr. Prager's work to find issue with, and completely ignores huge chunks that makes the case for nuclear involvement. AE911Truth's deceit is name dropping Jeff Prager but in not addressing head-on his larger case point-by-point.
Dr. David Griffin, our patron saint of 9/11 Truth, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
Lots of great evidence of 9/11 destruction that NT cannot explain. [28.51]. Fascinating. At 1:27:00 it shows a column that got bent into a C-shape.
Those "steel doobies" and arcs/sags (data-mined from Dr. Wood's work, but really available to all researchers and quite evident in the NIST videos) I've repeatedly pointed out over the years are evidence of a high heat source creating instantaneous end-to-end volume heating that nobody in the AE911Truth crowd has ever ventured to explain how NT would be position to accomplish.
Those vehicles destroyed along West Broadway and in the car park are evidence of EMP slipping out through window slits. The throwing of wall assemblies and other content some distance is an indication that there was a blast wave, but we're talking energy that is less than 1/5 the total sub-kiloton yield.
//
Chapter 2: Radioactivity Discussions with Willy Whitten
Mr. Willy Whitten (aka hybridrogue1 and Mr. Rogue) was once a prolific participant at Truth & Shadows, and my eager nemesis. He's create two or three web pages devoted to me as an "agitprop disinformant". His biggest claim to fame prior to this exchange was running out the clock for a review of Dr. Judy Wood's book, claiming he destroyed the book for bird cage liner, and maintaining this lie for 2-1/2 years to void the objective review.
x23 Maxwell C. Bridges : Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
2018-01-02
to: Adam Ruff
Willy Whitten
Craig McKee
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM
subject: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
Gentlemen, please accept my apologies for reaching out by email unsolicited (as in, not as a response to one of your comments made to various forums).
You will recall trying to strangle my FGNW hobby-horse with the argument: "No radiation = No nukes". Allow me to spare you the re-hash on how I proved that argument wrong, as well as one that you could not defend with proof.
Recently, I ran into the work of a German citizen (physics background, technical writer). We both believe 9/11 was nuclear, but differ in some details that I'm still scratching my head about.
Let me just cut right to the chase. Go to 57:46 in the following video where he talks about Scintillation of the Cameras on 9/11.
https://youtu.be/Ry4UWQjJnSc?t=3466
Mr. Rogue with your imagery background, I'm sure you'll find this rather ironic that video technology is going to turn you into a believer in a nuclear 9/11.
Mr. Ruff, be objective and fair. Whereas you might consider me OCD, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. My persistence is paying off in digging up (or recognizing) the evidence.
Mr. McKee, if you don't want to be a journalist and interview me, how about reaching out to Heinz Pommer through email. (My email to Dr. Andre Gsponer didn't bounce, but hasn't been answered either.)
Mr Hazan made a great comment recently. Pentagon or nuclear 9/11, it applies.
For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either to come to an agreement, or to ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.
...
Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.
Here's something that I wrote:
this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.
2018 is getting off to a good start.
// mcb
x24 Willy Whitten : engulfed in a cloud of dust
2018-01-02
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:36 PM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
"If you are engulfed in a radioactive cloud your camera will start to fail"~ Dimitri Khalezov
"If you are engulfed in a cloud of dust and grit your camera will start to fail"~Willy Whitten
My study of these special Gamma Camera's lead me to the conclusion that neither Khalezov or Maxwell Bridges have any idea of what they are taking about.
http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Gamma_Camera.htm
We have been through the first responder illnesses before and I will not relitigate that with Max another time.
I will say that I am not surprised that Maxwell continues to grasp at straws with his "hobby-horse".
HAPPY NEW YEAR Max
~Willy
x25 Willy Whitten : gamma camera
2018-01-02
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:54 PM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
There are special components to a Gamma Camera that are missing from the video cameras that were used on 9/11 by newsmen and other witnesses. See:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/SimpleGammaCamera.gif/400px-SimpleGammaCamera.gif
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Basic_Physics_of_Nuclear_Medicine/Nuclear_Medicine_Imaging_Systems
x26 Willy Whitten : gamma camera graphs
2018-01-02
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM (MST)
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
Max,
Have you personally seen any actual images from a gamma camera? It appears to me that the system produces graphs like the one above, not moving pictures of streaks and lights such as those shown in your video.
\\][//
x27 David Hazan : discover and prove the truth
2018-01-02
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 2, 2018 at 9:30 pm (EST)
As long as people, truthers, private citizens keep mistaking their main responsibility of demanding the truth with actually having to discover and prove the truth, especially when 99.9% of them are not trained in any of the required specialized subjects for proper scientific analyses, we shall always be “seeking” the truth and never finding it… Let alone ultimately using the said “truth” against the perps.
When, in the land of most advanced science and scientists and supercomputers, we’ve had to have a physics instructor to prove the towers’ free fall using a classroom physics “toolbox” to state what is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think, I’d say our main problem as a society is not really not knowing what happened, but more like not wanting to know what happened.
As far as the impact of “knowing” on the 9/11 activism and the world at large.. I feel that these are false concerns and misplaced priorities, similar to the bizarre concern over being embarrassed should the government produce footage of a 757…. I’d say energies would be much better spent if we were to have a ‘movement” to demand this footage. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would be thrilled if the truth finally came out even if I had a giant egg on my face. But I’m not holding my breath… we are light years away from such a thing happening.
x28 Maxwell C. Bridges : scintillation of the cameras on 9/11
2018-01-02
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:26 PM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
Dear Mr. Whitten,
That was a valient effort on the surface. Bravo. And thank you for engaging me. I won't be making a habit of it, because I know you don't like it.
In my excitement, I didn't even present what was worthwhile with scintillation of the cameras on 9/11. Thank you for the quote from Mr. Khalezov and yourself.
"If you are engulfed in a radioactive cloud your camera will start to fail"~ Dimitri Khalezov
"If you are engulfed in a cloud of dust and grit your camera will start to fail"~Willy Whitten
It is the nature of the failure that is important, and would probably manifest itself differently engulfed in a radioactive cloud and a normal dust & grit cloud.
Even though the cameras failed to render images in the cloud of dust and grit, the radioactive dust left traces on the media: the "electric disturbance snow" in the videos on 9/11 after the dust rolled over. If you watch further in the Pommer video, you'll see where others have done experiments with digital cameras and a radiation source. Similar "electric disturbance snow".
I need not go down too far into your gamma camera rabbit hole, because normal cameras (albeit probably professional quality) were hit with the scintillation effect. "Scintillation is a flash of light produced in a transparent material by the passage of a particle (an electron, an alpha particle, an ion, or a high-energy photon)."
Mr. Ruff and you wanted proof that 9/11 had normal radiation? There we have it, right before our very eyes this whole time. (And to think of the things that September Clues had us looking at instead of this scintillation?!!)
All the best in the new year, Mr. Whitten!
P.S. Coincidence that three emails came to me in a 35 minute period, and then 20 minutes later another well-written posting by Mr. Hazen appeared on T&S? Damn, if I wasn't playing on your hated Facebook platform in various 9/11 discussion groups, ran into several hornets nests full of agents. I shall not do that again soon; I've lost my patience, and as a lone individual with one persona in play, too many fronts get started (like when I get a disinfo one aimed at me). At one point, they were practically bragging about getting their orders from Malasia, the screenshots they take as proof to get paid, and their multiple online personas. One persona was even saying he had three debunker and two truther personas he managed.
// mcb
x29 Willy Whitten : chasing your tail
2018-01-02
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:37 PM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
Have fun chasing your tail Max. You are right, I don't have any interest in your hypothesis. I pointed out the components that are NOT in ANY video camera. I queried whether you had ever seen such imagery produced by a Gamma Camera. You are playing the same games you always have. Hand waving relevant questions put to you, plus clearly not understanding the technology you are presenting as proof of your assertions.
\\][//
+++
x30 Maxwell C. Bridges : components that aren't in any video camera
2018-01-02
date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:27 PM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
Dear Mr. Whitten,
For someone who doesn't have any interest in my hypothesis, I managed to get a good hour of work out of you as you scrambled to find "a distraction" halfway relevant.
You claim to be pointing out the components that aren't in any video camera and that make it specialized for gamma images. Great. Wonderful. But it isn't applicable; it is a distraction. Yes, medical equipment is going to be much better and have more whiz-bang components to render meaningful images. Medical equipment has to provide both the source for the radiation (e.g., scintillation component) as well as the collecting & rendering components.
The point you miss is that without adaptation, normal smart phone cameras can pick up radiation (but not anything that would be a coherent image. It won't be providing the radiation source; that is outside.)
Go here
http://www.rdklein.de/
and scroll down to "RadioactivityCounter PROJECT : Version 2.3 for mobil phones". Just an app for your phone.
Here's a cool video from the same:
http://www.rdklein.de/html/radioa_videos.html
You would already know these references if you had watched the Pommer video just a few minutes passed where I told you to go (57:46).
The fact that you didn't, is telling. Didn't go into the source; didn't go into the source's source. No, telling is that you went off and tried to Google up lame explanations for Gamma Cameras as a distraction.
I wrote:
This "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to.
Here I casually bend down to pick up your shot ammo:
"You are playing the same games you always have. Hand waving relevant questions put to you, plus clearly not understanding the technology you are presenting as proof of your assertions."
I load your ammo into my pee-shooter, and fire it back at you. Stop trying to pawn your weaknesses off onto me.
Always a pleasure, Mr. Whitten, and I'll be including our exchange in my composite work when I get around to publication.
// mcb
+++
x31 Willy Whitten : gamma camera distraction
2018-01-03
date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:45 AM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
"The point you miss is that without adaptation, normal smart phone cameras can pick up radiation (but not anything that would be a coherent image. It won't be providing the radiation source; that is outside.)"
A virtual smartphone "Geiger Counter" simply is not analogous to scintillation nor Gamma Cameras..
You would already know these references if you had watched the Pommer video just a few minutes passed where I told you to go (57:46).
Max, that video you link loads right on 57:46 for me. My question to you was not about those images in the video, my question to you was if you have seen any comparable images that were made by an actual Gamma Camera? And I noted that as far as I can tell from the technical details of these cameras that they do not generate visuals of the gamma rays, but in fact produce grafts and charts. DO YOU HAVE ANY VERIFICATION that the images from the 9/11 videos are comparable to radioactive scintillation or not?
I am not inquiring because I am interested in your loopy hypothesis Max, I am asking because it it so much like you to 2 & 2 together and come up with 1,000. A thought process of yours that has always intrigued me. Wishing and hoping isn't proof Max.
\\][//
x32 Willy Whitten : False Flag Psy-Ops
2018-01-03
date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:46 AM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
© Willy Whitten 2017
OUTLINE
> The perpetrators of the events of September 11,2001 are ruthless psychopaths
> Several agendas Intelligence-Military-Industrial are served by the events of 9/11
> The use of secret teams from members of the Intelligence-Military-Industrial complex are drawn on to carry out certain specific tasks, intellectual operational & planning. These teams are experts in various fields and can best be characterized as specialists in Black Ops (covert operations).
A good overview of this concept is given in ‘THE SECRET TEAM’ by Col Fletcher Prouty.
>This psychological operation is an ongoing enterprise establishing a permanent ongoing war of terror and aggression by the perpetrators. This aggression is manifest both overseas, and domestically as oppression and totalitarian domination.
GENERAL THEORY
The central impetus of the 9/11 operation is a simple insurance scam by the Silverstein Group that was organized by the combined efforts of the military industrial agendas of both the United States and Israel.
There are compelling reasons to surmise that the company CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS Inc. was contracted to assess and design a plan for the demolitions of the World Trade Center complex. It can be further postulated that this demolition company did not actually carry out the process of preparing the buildings for destruction, and that this operation was carried out by covert military demolition teams of primarily Israeli origin. These teams modified the original plan by CD Inc in such a way as to give the appearance that the building’s collapses initiated at the points of aircraft impacts, thus giving the visual impression that the air crashes were the initial cause of the building collapses. This was a slight of hand diversion tactic and central to the psychological trauma meant to result from this burlesque magic act.
https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/false-flag-psyop-9-11-vii/
+++
x33 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mobile Phone Geiger Counters
2018-01-03
date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 AM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
Dear Mr. Whitten,
Again, thank you for your feedback.
To your question about images made by an actual "Gamma Camera". Not sure what that is. Sounds like a good research project for you.
What I have seen in the video at just before the 1:00:00 mark goes into details about turning your mobile phone into a Geiger counter (plus the videos on the website for the app). The application does produce graphs and charts. It has an area (above the graphs) that accumulate the flashes picked up by the camera. The camera lens was covered in a manner to not permit visible light to penetrate but only radioactive particles. Kind of like a long term continual exposure.
But then, the experimenters take a phone camera 1:00:00 and show you what interference looks like in a strong radioactive environment. Low and behold, it looks similar to what certain cameras recorded after being overtaken by the dust cloud (58:00 mark).
I enjoyed the comment: "I am not inquiring because I am interested in your loopy hypothesis Max, I am asking because it it so much like you to 2 & 2 together and come up with 1,000. A thought process of yours that has always intrigued me. Wishing and hoping isn't proof Max."
Means a lot coming from a persona who played his role well in "avoiding 9/11 nuclear discussions" by running out the clock on debunking Dr. Wood's book and then crafting & maintaining a lie for two years about physically destroying it to continue avoid discussing it in a legitimate manner. Similar avoidance treatment to Dr. Andre Gsponer's "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects", peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal.
Indeed, Mr. Whitten, "wishing and hoping isn't proof", as you (probably) continue to wish and hope that super-duper NT did all of 9/11. It is so much like you to not acknowledge the weaknesses in your own premise yet supposedly you can spot them in the others without ever sniffing their book's open crack. How many years of publications into FGNW did Dr. Gsponer have before Dr. Jones 2006 "repudiates nukes on 9/11"? A convenient glaring omission by Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood.
Mr. Ruff calls me OCD. Yep, that's me rescuing the nuggets of truth because they are. You? Not so much, which is why I am far less intrigued with your thought process. Not enough integrity.
// mcb
x34 Willy Whitten : All water under the Maxwell Bridges
2018-01-03
date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:07 AM
subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
All water under the bridge Max...the Maxwell Bridges...Lol
As you have proven absolutely zero as per the NuclearDew "hypothesis in ... however many years that you have been harping on it ... I am, frankly bored to shit with your nonsense. Put that in your supposed "upcoming article".
In the meantime, get lost.
\\][//
x35 hybridrogue1 : Craig McKee is a mole, in cahoots with Jim Fetzer
2018-04-22
hybridrogue1
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
2018-04-22
Another One Bites the Dust
I have come to the conclusion that Craig McKee is a mole, in cahoots with Jim Fetzer.
hybridrogue1
April 24, 2018 at 10:42 am
SITUATIONAL ETHICS
Some thoughts on situational ethics concerning the Internet and email in particular.
I received an email from from a person I have been in conflict with for some time.
The first line in this email in full caps was the term: ‘CONFIDENTIAL’.
Now to be frank, I am not this person’s lawyer, his priest, his doctor, nor his confidant.
In fact, I consider my self to be a victim of this person’s vile vindictiveness.
I think it utterly naive that he would think it adequate to simply write the word “confidential” in his prologue to bind me to confidence.
We have made no contract, no agreement to such effect.
I have other friends who are involved with this person whom I think have a right to know what the subject of this email is about, if I should so chose to reveal it to them.
It is in this spirit that I now am going to post the email in question as well as my response to select parties of my choosing:
___________________________
Craig McKee
Apr 21, 2018 (3 days ago)
to me
CONFIDENTIAL
Willy,
“What the fuck? We start talking again and you pull this? You call me a mole?
Obviously, my instincts to boot you were correct. And I was planning to bring you back.
For your information, I deleted that one comment not because it challenged Fetzer but because it didn’t say anything. It didn’t explain which site he was calling junk, and it didn’t even explain what ideas he was reacting to. I would have no problem with an argument made against Fetzer. I allowed you to make hundreds of them. HUNDREDS!
Your charge against me is really quite dishonest. And you know this. But your hatred of Fetzer blinds you.
I was planning to bring you back to Truth and Shadows but I guess I’m glad you showed me your colors, again, before I made that mistake. It would only have been a matter of time before you went postal on the blog once again.”
___________________________
Willy Whitten
Apr 21, 2018 (3 days ago)
to Craig
It doesn’t matter to me anymore Craig. The very fact that you put up with Fetzer’s inane propaganda is the core of my problem, not because you booted the guy who posted a very gentle and non aggressive reply.
I am planning to delete my comment on my blog. But that doesn’t change anything.
My dad used to pull the kind of shit you are pulling now. One day he took me out to the curb where his rebuilt 54 Chevy was sitting. He told me that he had planned on giving to me on my 16th birthday, but since I had been such a fuck up for the last few months, he was going to sell it at the swap meet instead. What was my fuck-up? I had a girl over and she made a phone call from my parents bedroom. She sat on the pillow and didn’t straighten it out when she came back into the living room. My dad accused me of fucking her in his and mom’s bed. He had merely asked it a girl had been there the night before, and I said yea…for only about an hour. We listened to music and hang out in the living room. Then he laid his scurrilous accusation on me, and grounded me for a month…for lying!!! Hahahaha.
Well I don’t like being falsely accused. And I don’t like to hang out with moles. If you can hang out with moles like Fetzer, then you have a problem of judgement. You are probably just naive. But that doesn’t matter at all does it Craig?
A lot of people who buy the official story are merely naive. I call them dupes. What would you call them Craig?
I made that charge because you put up with Fetzer. And in my opinion whether it is because you are just gullible or something else doesn’t matter.
I have a lot of powerful arguments and facts compiled now. Even more than before. You have chosen between an obvious disinformant and me. If you were going to reinstate me on T&S you would have done it long before now. I am not buying your story.
I don’t see your blog flourishing as it once did. What do you suppose is the reason for that? Why have so many of your loyal fans faded away? I cannot answer that with any certainly. But perhaps you might ponder the situation.
Happy Trails!
~Willy (in confidence, Lol)
\\][//
x36 Maxwell C. Bridges : height of your precious wisdom and talents
2018-05-11 SEO
2018-05-11 MCB
Dear Mr. \\][//,
I just discovered (2018-05-11) this latest work from you that is undoubtedly at the height of your precious wisdom and talents. I thank you for this new homage to me that reveal itself in some of the 80 comments that are re-plays of snippets of our past discussions on Truth & Shadows from 2012.
I won't belabor the obvious point that re-attacking my views from 2012 is a straw-man cheat. I have a new position statement that reflects my maturing and evolving thought: 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case (2018-02-11).
I don't need to respond to any of your individual re-purposed extracts nor to your comments from recently. Except for one thing. You are being plagiarized. You might want to look into it and have them stop. Pay attention to the date stamps in order to get context.
You (hybridrogue1) wrote in July 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm "Maxwell Bridges can’t stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely."
I suspect your comment was vacuumed up (along with plagiarized words from others) into a disinfo bot's database and was sent at me 2016-06-09 in an email. At the time I didn't make the connection they were plagiarizing from you.
Once your comment got into its databases, it was re-used again (2018-04-09) in a comment to my blog [now re-formatted to be within the blog article Part 3.]
I know that you like to copy your passages from one blog to another. But it was still quite the surprise to see the exact same quote again (2018-04-24) on your blog.
There are trends to be extrapolated.
Your \\][// blogging efforts: [1] "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus", [2] "Maxwell Briges: Agitprop Disinformant", and [3] "ELECTRONIC MEDIA".
PhantasyPublishing blogging efforts (that survive): [3] "9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work" (2018-04-09) and [4] "more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges" (2018-04-09)
The selection of "turf" is fascinating, not so much from the perspective of dueling blogs, but in the subject matter. My most current work on FGNW (2016-03-11 & 2018-02-11) do not get taken apart, section-by-section. They don't get addressed at all.
Whereas you have a link to "The physical principles of thermonuclear explosives, inertial confinement fusion, and the quest for fourth generation nuclear weapons" by Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni, you get hung up on future-tense. You don't perform a deep-dive into the work to find out what was present-tense in 2000 (like late-3rd generation) nor if that could be applicable to 9/11. Exhibits both an inability to perform fundamental research and is just another a cheat.
That inability to perform fundamental research is why you hold to the line: "conclusive proof of controlled demolition using chemical explosives." Not true, and you have no proof. Not documented in the USGS Survey of the dust in the tables or explanatory text, nor by the RJLee Group, nor by Paul Lioy et al, nor by Dr. Steven Jones. The latter has never tested his samples for chemical explosives and A&E9/11Truth refused to test when brought to their attention. The true findings from the dust samples were (a) a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres, and (b) the radioactive and decay elements in proportional quantities as signature to fission/fusion devices (appeared in tables but never addressed in text of the USGS Report.)
They say, if you aren't getting any flak, you aren't over the target.
// mcb
No comments:
Post a Comment