This article defends the premise that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were deployed as the primary mechanisms of destruction in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. Discussions happened on Facebook between 2020-02 and 2020-08.
Expand All Parts / Hide All Parts
Expand All Sections / Hide All Sections
Part 1: FGNW Discussions with Dan Cope
x2 Dan Cope : nukes don't turn concrete and steel into dust in mid air
nukes don't turn concrete and steel into dust in mid air.Was there a dosimeter reading from that day?
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : beg to differ on your assessment about what nukes can and cannot do
2020-02-07
Dear Mr. Dan Cope, I beg to differ on your assessment about what nukes can and cannot do. Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons are a different breed. The high energy neutrons deposit energy deep within the molecular structure of the content they pass through.
Here is the article that most of the re-purposed FB discussions on FGNW were meant to be based on.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x6 Dan Cope : were dosimeter readings taken?
2020-02-07
So,I assume that there were dosimeter readings taken?
x8 Maxwell C. Bridges : You validate them or debunk them
2020-02-07
Dear Mr. Dan Cope, You bring up "dosimeter readings?" You validate them or debunk them, whatever you find. I'll not do your busy work. I know that delayed, haphazard, insufficient sample sizes were some of the hallmarks of all reports having to do with radiation.
But if you'll look into Section 9. "Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras" and be willing to follow links and watch videos from there (as all sincere and objective seekers of truth would demonstrate), you sir will be awed by the recorded real-time evidence of radiation in NIST's very own videos, suppressed for I don't know how many years.
It is right there before our eyes, but many generations technology has trained us to ignore snow and glitches in quality. The question are: when do such start to happen? and what areas of the picture frame are affected (as opposed to others)?
//
x10 Dan Cope : should have been substantiable.readings
2020-02-07
Dan Cope
Maxwell Bridges When did I ask you to do my "busy work"for me?I would think that if nukes were used(and I'm not saying they weren't)there should have been substantiable.readings made.I haven't heard of anything yet.
Dan Cope
Maxwell Bridges So nukes can "toast"cars a hundred yards away from ground zero?
x12 Maxwell C. Bridges : reports don't exist that show a complete picture
2020-02-07
Dear Mr. Dan Cope, you can make the same argument about all steps taken after 9/11 to measure or investigate what happened. So sure were they that "airplane impacts + office fires + gravity = sufficient explanation", real fire investigators were denied access for months; Freshkills scrap yard and shipments to China; look at the videos of Mayor Rudy bragging about how many dump trucks they filled overnight after 9/11.
Here is a sword that cuts both directions. Many opponents of nuclear devices would make the dubious claim
"you don't have evidence of such-and-such radiation at this-and-that levels, therefore it wasn't nukes of type A."
Aside from the limits imposed by the framing, the problem is that the reports don't exist that show a complete picture. They demonstrate juking in other reports (examples available upon request), yet expect shoddy reports on (e.g., tritium) to be accepted unquestioned and unchallenged.
+++
Before completing this, you post the question: So nukes can "toast"cars a hundred yards away from ground zero?
The answer is in Section 6. "EMP and Vehicle Damage."
I'll caution you, though, that if you refer to damaged vehicles near the bridge, my learned opinion is that the vehicles (like the Police Car) were damaged at a closer distance to the complex and later towed to the bridge area as a staging place. [This is one area where Dr. Wood inserted purposeful disinformation.]
//
x14 Dan Cope : Hundreds were affected as far away as the parking lot
2020-02-07
They moved one car?Hundreds were affected as far away as the parking lot.If nukes were used,why is there all that paper flying around?Wouldn't the intense heat that destroyed the structure also burn the paper?
x16 Maxwell C. Bridges : EMP wouldn't affect paper anyway
2020-02-07
Dear Mr. Dan Cope, Your response does not give me positive indications that you read the section or understand what is being dealt with here. Out of range for the EMP was the bridge where the police car and other vehicles were towed to. In range were the cars on West Broadway and the parking lot.
The images with yellow cones that comes up with the posting? That is NOT my premise, but simply the first image at the web page (in a discussion about FGNW with Mr. Wayne Coste.) If you expand-all subsection and then that discussion, you can scroll to see the Paintbrush images from me.
"Cone" is the concept. Not everything was directly in the line of fire of the FGNW output. FGNW are in the category of DEW, so entirely plausible that the location (and molecular structure) of some paper didn't get zapped by the neutrons, and heat wave localized to ignition areas; EMP wouldn't affect paper anyway.
When talking heat from these FGNW, yet it was intense in the ignition area. But 80% of the energy (of an already sub-kiloton nuclear yield) was in the form of highly energetic neutrons.
Example: concrete and drywall have trapped water molecules. Highly energetic neutrons passing by shuck off some of their energy deep in the water molecules' structure in the form of heat, instantly turning into steam whose expanding volumetric pressure creates micro-fractures and breaks up the content from its insides.
//
x18 Dan Cope : not very convincing
2020-02-07
Maxwell Bridges not very convincing,sorry.
x20 Maxwell C. Bridges : "guess you just had to read it"
2020-02-07
Dear Mr. Dan Cope, sometimes when people don't laugh at a funny, the teller says: "Guess you just had to be there (to understand the humor)."
In like fashion, "guess you just had to read it" for my blog article to be convincing.
How do I know you didn't read ~ANY~ of it? Because you maybe woulda coulda shoulda dragged something back, like a "quotation" and your analysis of what was wrong about it.
In this simple fashion, your hypnotic suggestion is dispelled, *snap of the fingers*.
//
x22 Dan Cope : hypnosis didn't work
2020-02-07
Maxwell Bridges darn!The hypnosis didn't workOh well,back to the drawing board.
x24 Maxwell C. Bridges : my evolution in thought in coming to Truth on 9/11 nuclear devices
2020-02-07
Dear Mr. Dan Cope, I extend to you a great gift in my OCD, "vanity blog" efforts that document my evolution in thought in coming to Truth on 9/11 nuclear devices. I will let you be the judge of whether or not the details of my premise are valid, so your work is not done. [Disclaimer: some of my earlier beliefs I no longer hold due to discovery of new analysis or evidence, but I have the legacy to prove my thinking was once there.]
MY GIFT is that I allow you to stand on my shoulders to take the public understanding on the 9/11 Nuclear DEW subject to the next level WITHOUT having been a real-time participant over many years in the many dizzying carousel spins. Interesting is that most of the spins came from deflection and avoidance of tackling the 9/11 nuclear subject head on in a rational and objective manner, that also had elements of inabilities to acknowledge blatant weaknesses in the foundation of their "consensus 9/11.Truth" beliefs.
I am not asking you to debate me (but I welcome it and come super-well prepared.) No.
My hypnotic suggestion to you is a follows:
+++ hypnotic suggestion, say the following out loud
"I, Dan Cope, owe it to myself and my 9/11 understanding to study in some detail what this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges wrote and validate it or not in my personal judgment. After all, this a$$hole was once an ardent -- even if sometimes "backhanded" -- prolific champion of Woodsian DEW (as I appear to be now). How in the eff could his understanding evolve further, allegedly standing on Dr. Judy Wood's shoulders?!!"
"I, Dan Cope, claim for myself my sincerity in seeking Truth, which is how I open-mindedly studied and came to believe Dr. Wood was on the right track about 9/11, pointing out more anomalous pieces of evidence than other "consensus 9/11 Truth" mechanisms. And certainly when it is made known to me that Dr. Wood dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, purposely connected no dots, and drew no conclusions, then I, Dan Cope, have the honesty to acknowledge these weaknesses and that out of necessity and requirement, Woodsian DEW needs to advance to the next level."
"And this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges boasts of doing that?!! WTF!!!"
"WELL, I, Dan Cope, will personally see about that, and later school him properly where he is in error."
+++ end hypnotic suggestion
Go to the blog article that is in my first comment of this thread.
//
x26 Maxwell C. Bridges : hypnotic suggestion
2020-02-07
Dear Mr. Dan Cope, Allow me to paste in a copied passage that is a hypnotic suggestion.
+++ hypnotic suggestion, say the following out loud
"I, Dan Cope, owe it to myself and my 9/11 understanding to study in some detail what this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges wrote and validate it or not in my personal judgment. After all, this a$$hole was once an ardent -- even if sometimes "backhanded" -- prolific champion of Woodsian DEW (as I appear to be now). How in the eff could his understanding evolve further, allegedly standing on Dr. Judy Wood's shoulders?!!"
"I, Dan Cope, claim for myself my sincerity in seeking Truth, which is how I open-mindedly studied and came to believe Dr. Wood was on the right track about 9/11, pointing out more anomalous pieces of evidence than other "consensus 9/11 Truth" mechanisms. And certainly when it is made known to me that Dr. Wood dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, purposely connected no dots, and drew no conclusions, then I, Dan Cope, have the honesty to acknowledge these weaknesses and that out of necessity and requirement, Woodsian DEW needs to advance to the next level."
"And this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges boasts of doing that?!! WTF!!!"
"WELL, I, Dan Cope, will personally see about that, and later school him properly where he is in error."
+++ end hypnotic suggestion
This is two versions behind the "2020 FGNW Opus" that I am procrastinating on, but has concepts and passages that will be re-purposed.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
Part 2: FGNW Discussions with Michael Rose
x28 Maxwell C. Bridges : wasn't what they wrote in their feeble attempts at debunking
We've all heard at some time: "It wasn't what you said, but how you said it." With regards to my hobby-horse of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), it wasn't what they wrote in their feeble attempts at debunking, but how they avoided doing the simple steps rational, objective, open-minded, sincere world citizens would take, like reading what substantiates FGNW.
This collection of (mostly Facebook) discussions into my FGNW hobby-horse over the last 2 years demonstrates agents and bots, IMHO.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
For heaven's sake, don't read it front to back; hop around and scan. However, the one discussion worthy of deeper study is with Mr. Wayne Coste.
The premise of "no 9/11 nukes" as presented by Mr. Coste gets taken apart section-by-section in good old Dr. David Griffin fashion. It wasn't what Mr. Coste wrote in defense of his premise, because he didn't. It was how he weaseled out of defending his work; how he tried to divert into a couple of worthy areas (concrete spalling, MCNP neutron absorption); and how he completely avoiding speculating into how NT could explain (just 4 pieces of) anomalous evidence depicted in the NIST FOIA videos at the scrap yards for WTC.
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
FGNW Discussions
The following discussions happened over a two year period primarily on Facebook, but also in other discussion forums and by e-mail...
x30 Michael Rose : who needs another 2-year discussion
2020-01-29
Thanks.Max.... but who needs another 2-year discussion?
x32 Maxwell C. Bridges : prevent discussions from disappearing
2020-01-29
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, exactly. You have stumbled upon a very powerful debate technique that can avoid unproductive and distracting carousel spins, and identify game playing.
You see, if I run into the same players in different threads who start cranking through material already covered, I've got my goto links ready to go. If it isn't the same persona but if the direction is going to the same places, I can copy and paste my previous efforts. Working smarter, not harder, but not quite like a bot.
The links can help bring someone up to speed on a subject. I can identify a chapter and comment number. (FB tends to munge the URL removing the arguments that could take you to a specific comment.)
But the point also is, such a collection identifies trends with the participants. I usually include a link back to the source discussion. But because this is inside of FB and requires a login and possibly membership in a group, this can't always be used as the "gotcha-goto-URL" to prove so-and-so once wrote such-and-such. My re-purposing for the sake of fair use discussion and commentary gives a copy more public and permanent URL.
A weakness of various discussion opponents is in not having a legacy. Or having their legacy buried in the databases of others, like FB, which makes it hard to logically get to our own efforts and comments. Sometimes, they deem lack-of-legacy a strength, like nothing to incriminate them later. Also gave them the wiggle room to lie "we discussed that thoroughly" when they didn't.
So, this re-purposing effort turns their strength into my strength, allows me to prevent discussions from disappearing, ...
More benefits are that you get to scan through 2-years of discussion really fast and find what was relevant without real-time passing you by.
//
x34 Michael Rose : lamentable and total avoidance of logic
2020-01-29
Michael Rose
You previous lamentable and total avoidance of logic in your no-plane debate disproves any ppossible residual validity in what you just yped, sir.
Michael Rose
I'm actually quite iterested in what military weaponry was used in demolishing all 3 Twin Towers, but I will choose a source that avoids political nonscience thanks.
Don't take it so personally.
x36 Maxwell C. Bridges : brutal moderating-into-the-bit-bucket any further NPT comments
2020-01-29
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, Oh, my! Aren't you special!!!? Loved your "total avoidance of logic" and "political nonscience" charges against me, and your attempt to re-crank a NPT carousel that distracts from this FGNW discussion in your typo-challenged, two-in-a-row, spamming comments.
To call your comments "charges" gives them too much validity and weight. They are "hypnotic assertions without substantiation," a poor tactic that eventually paints its user as "a liar."
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
Alas, NPT Round 7 clearly shows that you avoided discussing the physical evidence of real aircraft captured in pictures before either tower came down. Because this was a common occurence with NPT agents and bots, I created a special section outside of chapters and at the very bottom called "Physical evidence of WTC planes" to facilitate locating it.
The record also shows you avoided most of my bullet-by-bullet takedowns of what substantiates your NPT beliefs. My favorite was you calculating a very slow speed from one video and failing to notice that it was manipulated to be "slow-motion," a common practice with sports broadcasts for at least half a century.
LAYING DOWN THE LAW UNDER THIS POSTING
This thread is about FGNW.
If you would like to further your NPT nonsense with me, this thread is not an option.
Your valid options for NPT discussion are:
(1) Make comments to my blog. It is on moderation, so expect delays between when you post a comment and when it goes live. WARNING: Comment length is limited and much shorter than FB.
(2) Make a comment to your FB thread and tag me. Right now, I have notifications on your NPT posting turned off. [If I don't reply there, message me.]
(3) Accept defeat (on NPT) and go away, because further discussion with me will either convince you of the NPT deceit that duped you, or legitimately expose valid negative character traits about you that objective latter-day lurker readers will have no choice but to conclude have agency and / or bot origins.
Because I don't want NPT discussions here in this FGNW thread, I will be very brutal in moderating-into-the-bit-bucket any further NPT comments. Because this hasn't attracted many comments [just yours and mine], I leave the nuclear option [deleting posting / making new posting] on the table as a means of getting you to adhere to my requests to keep these discussions FGNW relevant and not NPT.
//
Part 3: FGNW Discussions with Bob Byron, Eric Sandstrom
x38 Maxwell C. Bridges : what other 9/11 subjects are they found unfaithful
Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, I'll try not to divert from your worthy efforts too much. However, when Chandler / Coste are found unfaithful in these 9/11 subjects, one must ask what other 9/11 subjects they aren't just wrong about, but deceitfully so? Their premises for WTC destruction are lacking.
I have had direct correspondence with Chandler (earliest 2011) and Coste (2019) on different 9/11 themes. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, "Oh the places they would ~not~ go..." and completely counter to the open-mindedness to evidence-in-need-of-explanation that should be the hallmark of a Truther.
Case in point, Chandler, Jones, et al were quick to label Dr. Wood and her work, but without specifics.
+++
Because this is well below the "See more..." link, let it be known that FGNW are in the category of DEW, making Dr. Wood closer to the truth than NT. [Details upon request.]
Disclaimer: I am ~not~ promoting the work of Dr. Wood and determined for myself where and why it is disinformation. [Details upon request.]
But this is brought up, because back when I was leaning heavily into Woodsian DEW, I secured Chandler's permission to purchase and send him a copy of Dr. Wood's book in the hopes of "the good, the bad, and the ugly" review. I wanted it debunked legitimately and needed help. [I ended up debunking Woodsian DEW on my own.]
Mr. Chandler could not even be bothered to read it and give specifics. He did make an astute observation related to the over 500 full-color graphic images and large page-size of Dr. Wood's handsome, heavy, 500-page book: "Someone paid a lot of money in its production."
Why no specifics?
Because her book has tons of evidence -- the nuggets of truth that all sincere truth-seekers must rescue from the maws of disinformation -- that Chandler/Coste can't explain with their limited hang-out nano-thermite (NT).
As for Coste, I took apart the premises (by AE9/11 Truth and Coste) about "nuclear blasts not causing the destruction of the towers." I did it section-by-section for both (although one is still being worked and not published.) I WAS IN AGREEMENT with the premises but still debunked the shit out of it. How so? The framing of "nuclear blasts" is old school nuclear, when quite differently FGNW emit 80% of their energy (already sub-kiloton) as highly energetic neutrons and the remaining 20% of the energy is divided between heat-wave, blast wave, and EMP. That 80% highly energetic neutrons would produce different destructive outcomes -- content blowing itself to pieces -- that could be described as "dustification" and muted in sound compared to equivalent energy yields of massive amounts of traditional chemical-based explosives (including NT) that must transfer destructive energy to neighboring targets using the medium of air and rapidly changing air pressure.
Thus, technically nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC. The crafty deceit on display is how they try to discredit all nuclear involvement with this faulty framing.
Wayne Coste neither defended his work nor acknowledged glaring weaknesses. He made a several valient efforts into spinning with science, that my wielding of science also unspun. [Details upon request.]
+++
Ooops. Got carried away. All below the "See more..." fold.
The point is, you've found deceit in these individuals in a couple areas, and I have found it in a third.
//
x40 Bob Byron : only part not lacking
2020-02-24
"Their premises for WTC destruction are lacking."
that is the only part that is not lacking....
...maybe someone had a talk with him.....
x42 Maxwell C. Bridges : NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction
2020-02-24
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, for clarity, you wrote effectively that the only part of Chandler / Coste premises that isn't lacking (for evidence, scientific proof, etc.) relates to the WTC destruction.
Again I beg to differ. Whether or not NT was involved isn't an argument that I make, and it is no skin off the nose of my premises if NT were involved in some measure.
The point that any sincere seeker of Truth will have to acknowledge is that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. This is borne out because NT according to even Dr. Steven Jones does not have the brisance for pulverization and would have to be mixed with something else. The issues with that are manifold:
- Chemical based weapons do much of their destruction by using the medium of air and, hence, would have been deafening loud. Deafness is not one of the ailments of survivors, and this is one area where Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST was telling the truth with a straight face.
- NT already had trouble accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, but increasing the brisance only exasperates the problem of the implied quantities that high school chemistry calculates at obscenely massive and UNSPENT from the original overkill pulverizing task.
- Dr. Jones et al did a shitty job of researching nuclear weapons, framed them at high yield, accepted unquestioned and unchallenged shoddy reports from others (with different purposes) as the definitive word (e.g., tritium, radiological elements), mischaracterized levels, didn't mention neutron devices, and didn't mention the bastard hellspawn of neutron devices, namely Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
I'm linking an earlier (2016) version of my FGNW premise, because it slaughters the NT sacred cow (with science, research, and evidence).
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
I have a 2018 version, and am still procrastination my 2020 FGNW opus on the theme... distracted by Facebook discussions, which if you menu around my blog, will see I have re-purposed. And one of them in particular was with Wayne Coste.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong on FGNW. But everywhere I shop this around to -- be they government agents or be they hard-core 9/11 Truthers --, this FGNW hobby-horse prevails, and its hardest opponents (e.g., Coste) found guilty of disinfo distracting techniques.
For the record, AE9/11Truth has tried to debunk nuclear means, but you don't have to get beyond their abstract to spot the deceit: they frame it as "nuclear blasts" (so 1st thru 3rd generational nuclear weapons), while fourth generation nuclear weapons are designed to deliver energy differently, directly, and right into the molecular structure of all that the highly energetic neutrons pass through.
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
x44 Bob Byron : since when do those asking questions need to prove a damn thing?
2020-02-24
Maxwell Bridges "isn't lacking (for evidence, scientific proof, etc.) relates to the WTC destruction."
first off, since when do those asking questions, pointing out the absurd, need to prove a damn thing?????
none of us has to PROVIDE EVIDENCE of fire and gravity NOT doing this....
they MUST support and prove the fires present DID do what they claim...
Chandler is not saying FIRE/GRAVITY did this X3.....the NIST LEADERS and Bazant are.
.
"For the record, AE9/11Truth has tried to debunk nuclear means,"
therein lies your problem.
you proceed with your spiel, never once informing who is listening, the LIES OF THE OFFICIAL STORY!!!
who is going to believe you unless there is a reason to believe you.
and no one questioning the OS has to PROVE anything...
they must prove fire and GRAVITY is what displays ALL THE VISUAL and physical attributes of an 'explosion'!
I also noticed YOU refuse to discuss this simplistic basic showing them the LIARS they are...which also gives more credibility to an alternative.
here YOU are attacking EVERYONE, but the official story....?
deception duly noted!!!!!!
x46 Maxwell C. Bridges : eager to assign me busy work
2020-02-24
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, you and I are players on the same team for 9/11 Truth (on different squads), and seem to be talking passed each other.
Dude, my FGNW premise attacks the 9/11 official story in its very existence. Period.
You seem eager to assign me busy work to go after the official story and its players. I'd be happy provide you with a list of URLs into my blog that documents my work on the matter is already done, those battles fought and won. [I don't feel like distracting this discussion on such re-tread topics.]
And even if I didn't have such personal legacy to stand on, I could always re-purpose valid nuggets of truth from AE9/11Truth and various 9/11 Truth leaders including Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Mr. Chandler, etc. In fact, had you read my work(s), you'd discover where I had already done that, stood on their shoulders, and brought 9/11 understanding to a new level.
Meanwhile when considering that 9/11 covered over at the onset $2.3 trillion in missing Pentagon spending, then we can assume plenty of money was available to throw at the problem and its after-effects, even if it means having to pay to co-opt, bribe, influence, or black-mail just about anyone. They could pretty much "salary" through many channels anybody of 9/11 Truth notoriety.
And according to my wild-ass speculation on such topics, they were told what they could talk about (e.g., free-fall, NT, beams-from-space, deep underground nukes) in a stilted fashion and what they couldn't; they could not connect any dots in answering all pieces of anomalous 9/11 evidence that point directly at state-of-the-art fourth generation nuclear devices. This is equivalent to informing "the enemy" what is in US arsenals, and we know US history is littered with lesser mortals who have been tried on charges of treason for exposing "means and methods."
The root of your annoyance with me is that I'm a few lessons, a few levels, a few layers, a few laps ahead of you in discovering Truth in 9/11 with nuclear components, and unfortunately (figurative) nuclear fall-out casualties are many group-trusted figures and organizations of significance in the 9/11 Truth communities. They went "thus far but no further," blatantly, abruptly, as if on command, and steering public understanding. They provided stilted works that bend around huge gaps that their education and understanding should have caught.
Twain wrote: "It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince him he's been fooled."
Don't take it personally. The pain of cognitive dissonance was designed into the clever 9/11 disinformation (like NT). When a person becomes aware of NT possibilities on 9/11, the conspiracy minded latch onto this and stop; it becomes literally a headache when further analysis shows where the NT premise -- thoroughly entrenched in their minds -- is a limited hang-out, stop-gap to prevent discovering deeper truths (FGNW).
//
x48 Bob Byron : push away newbies on the fence
2020-02-24
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges "You seem eager to assign me busy work to go after the official story and its players."
no, just creating useless confusion to push away newbies on the fence..
.
"The root of your annoyance with me is that I'm a few lessons, a few levels, a few layers, a few laps ahead of you"
wow!....ain't we the conceded one.
...nope...no 'lapping' here????
so it's more like I am ahead of you because I looked at ALL the 'nuke' evidence years ago, and realize with the THOUSANDS of different combinations of what it ?COULD BE?....fire and GRAVITY is not one of them.....
...and THAT IS the official story.
the DICTUM of all Law, SCIENCE and proper debate is those whom assert MUST PROVE.
FIRST comes the official story.
so they PROVE fire and gravity....
period!
but look at you???.....'confusing' yourself and anyone listening to you.
I don't have to support 'bombs'
YOU do not have to support 'nukes'
NUT, those pushing the official story blaming what we see on the FIRES PRESENT and GRAVITY...must support and prove 'fires-present' and GRAVITY!
your material is great!!!.....FOR A COURT ROOM!!!
but it will NOT get us there....
the ones uttering the FIRST WORDS of this agenda will get us there....the amazing NIST LEADERS ignoring their own investigation to go elsewhere.
ALL the actions observed on 9-11 denote CONTROL!
gravity has NO ability to attain the deliberate actions of a 'controlled collapse'.
my showing deliberate and DIRECT evidence of the NIST LEADERS ignoring their own scientific document, attacking lies to it, then completely ignoring it to peruse an agenda with Bazant at Northeastern University.
YOU ignore the FACT they lie to push your own agenda.
.
Don't take it personally.....but I am here with the same intent I had in 2005 WAITING with the structural community for the NIST evidence.....that has never once been provided..
and is still NOT there.
why.....
because they have a presidential E.O to keep it hidden.
...but no.....YOU have other tidbits on your plate you would rather focus on rather than the deliberate lies pushed to the WORLD.
...so getting back to your material.....unless the other party you are explaining your theory to, KNOWS the NIST LEADERS lie, claiming NEW PHYSICS times three.... (like I do), your claims are nothing more than, 'someones-agenda'...
no one has any reason to believe you unless you give them one.
Max, don't take it personally, but you sound EXACTLY like Sam Beeson...the long winded derbunker who discusses everything, BUT the facts of 9-11.
Image may contain: dog and outdoor
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges "Dude, my FGNW premise attacks the 9/11 official story in its very existence. Period."
no, DEMANDING they support and PROVE what they claim attacks them to the core of their existence!!!....period....
as is the dictum of ALL Law, SCIENCE and proper DEBATE!
FIRST comes the pushed official claims....
the claim made where I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE BOMBS....but they MUST support and PROVE the fires-present and GRAVITY is what mimics the deliberate visual and physical attributes of an EXPLOSION!!!
this holds true on 9-11 also.....this dictum did NOT change due to 9-11.
He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
so what we have here is a person wanting to EXTEND 9-11 truth.....
while I wish to END it by dragging the FIRST LIARS in front of all and demand they supporter their WORDS....
the amazing NIST LEADERS ignoring their own to go with Bazant...
the ones claiming...."nothing to see here...this is just fire and GRAVITY'...
...but for SOME reason, you want nothing to do with this....?why?
Image may contain: cloud, sky, skyscraper and outdoor
x50 Maxwell C. Bridges : allow OCT to set the debate stage, the focus, the paradigm
2020-02-24
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Meh. I have been there and done that, and saved & re-purposed my work. Ergo, I'm still laps ahead of you even when I tire of continued merry-go-rounds on the same themes.
The problem with (continued) discussions that take on the official conspiracy theory (OCT), is that you allow OCT to set the debate stage, the focus, the paradigm. Thomas Pynchon "If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
To your point, I did find debunking of OCT valuable enough to ride too many times their carousels. But given that they were never sincere in the first place (contrary to general expectations when two have discussions), they would never acknowledge errors in their premise, much less be convinced of anything else. I persisted in my efforts not for their sake, but for that of latter-day lurker-readers.
In the face of such fruitless efforts, I realized that if OCT continued to set the stage, true 9/11 mechanisms of destruction would never get center-stage time in the limelight.
Although I may not have made it clear, FGNW debunks OCT (& NT, Woodsian DEW, deep-underground nukes) quite handily, because it addresses a much wider swath of evidence and exposes huge weaknesses in the pillars that supposedly support such premises.
You wrote: "you sound EXACTLY like Sam Beeson...the long winded derbunker who discusses everything, BUT the facts of 9-11."
Name sounds familiar, and turns out I had some run-in's with him too on Facebook, now re-purposed in Part 4: "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate".
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
Be that as it may, you seem intent on taking discussions with a fellow 9/11 Truther BACKWARD to address OCT fallacies. How about you prove your 9/11 Truther credentials contains an open-mind to objectively consider my FGNW premise (given in a link earlier) and take discussions FORWARD?
An inability to take 9/11 discussions to the next level with someone equally (if not far better) informed than you would not reflect well on you.
Change my mind, or let my research change your mind.
//
Trend line to shut down 9/11 nuclear considerations
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
x52 Bob Byron : He who asserts must prove
2020-02-24
Bob Byron
Maxwell... there is nothing to change and this is all about what is here FIRST and pushed to the WORLD as a lie...
and for some reason you distance yourself from proper procedure when it comes to what WE ARE ALL ABOUT!
9-11 TRUTH.....
it STARTS with the ones asserting
FIRST!
the NIST LEADERS, ignoring their own investigation to go elsewhere claiming "new physics"...they refuse to support.
Bob Byron
""Fair and Civil Debate"."
??Max....they booted me from there for being the only one WANTING to debate the actual official story....go figure!
I don't have to prove anything.....neither do you......they, the ones asserting fire and gravity did what is observed exclusively on 9-11, MUST PROVE fire and gravity on 9-11 did it.
they kept DEMANDING I prove bombs....I'm not there or ANYWHERE pushing bombs....I ask why and how GRAVITY has the ability to display all the visual and physical attributes OF A BOMB, only on that one single day in history..
He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
but it seems as if you have a problem with proper Dictum, for YOU are playing THEIR game....and trying to bring that 'lying-game' here?.....sorry....not happening.
Max....GRAVITY did not enable this act.
it does not matter what we ?THINK? it is, one thing for sure is this is NOT GRAVITY displaying all the visual and physical attributes of an 'explosion'.
and they push and claim it is WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE to show it is....
all science says it's NOT!
they demand it is and outright refuse to support themselves with permission TO do so.
....and ?YOU do not have a problem with that, so you let that little tidbit of info just slide on by?????
I'm not against anything you provide.....I am against you refusing to prep the your readers with the "WHY" you think what you do...
i.e. the LIES of the NIST LEADERS!
I'm only trying to help you GAIN by first showing their LIES making way for what you provide.
Image may contain: cloud, sky, skyscraper and outdoor
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : teaching basic math, while my course is advanced calculus
2020-02-24
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, There you go again, completely misjudging your audience and all intent on keeping 9/11 understanding at sophomoric levels. The analogy is that you are teaching basic math, while my course is advanced calculus with physics.
You are more than welcome to start your own top-level comment for a new thread -- or even a brand-new posting -- where you can aim your rhetoric at an audience of newbies and 9/11 fence-sitters (and stilted agents).
Alas, I have the distinction of starting this thread aimed at an audience of experienced Truthers where the understanding of basic math -- everything you distract this thread with -- is a given and doesn't need to waste the audience's brain cells in repeating.
I'll not have YOU purposely rabbiting on and on in MY thread with basic and agreed upon assertions that slow if not retard teachings into advanced 9/11. You're like the slow kid who is holding back the learning of the gifted and talented.
I mentioned before that we are on different squads of the same team with the same purposes. This thread should have been my squad on the field doing what it is special at. Instead, your "special-ed" squad comes in disruptively to throw wrenches into the works.
FOUL ON THE PLAY!!! Too many players on the field.
If you can't get your squad to address anything in my top-level comment that anchors this thread, then you should remove your squad to your own practice fields (threads or postings) and stop polluting and distracting from the advanced 9/11 enlightenment that my teachings provide.
//
x56 Bob Byron : they still think fire and gravity did this
2020-02-24
Maxwell Bridges " The analogy is that you are teaching basic math"
because THAT is the intelligence level of 98% of the audience....
they need they basics before they can advance further.
and the 'basic' direct knowledge of the Amazing Gov,. scientist LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH, is that little 'edge' that will give ANYONE the incentive to dig further....and they will not like what they find.
blindly hitting a person with your agenda, with NO reason to even listen to you, does what for you?
....it makes you look like a kook because they still think fire and gravity did this...
and see you as a liar.
show them the LIES of the OS first, and it leaves the door open for 'alternatives'...
.
"I'll not have YOU purposely rabbiting on and on in MY thread"
actually, this is Eric's thread.
???????...so many years ahead of me...[shakes head].
so.....why are you even arguing with me?
...and besides, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE of nukes, you just have evidence of 'something' NOT being from fire and GRAVITY!!!!
but you would rather f*ck with people and claim superiority, rather than use your knowledge to gain momentum for the group as a whole.
which, in my book, puts you on equal terms as any debunker...
they purposely distract from basic FACTS and science in lieu of their agenda.....just like you are doing with me.
...just saying what I see....
x58 Maxwell C. Bridges : a skewed view of the audience in this group
2020-02-24
Dear Mr Bob Byron, my thread on calculus does not hinder any thread about basic math that you want to teach. Go for it.
The complaint from me is your interruption of my calculus class. Kind of rude and certainly distracting.
Just as remarkable is that you have not expressed whether or not my 9/11 calculus has given you a new depth of understanding.
Point of clarification. It is Eric Sandstrom posting, but my top level comment that created a thread belonging to me. (How so? If I delete my top level comment, there go all of your comments in the thread.)
You've pretty much pissed this tread away with your rudimentary bent. Fine.
But if an opportunity in the future inspires me to make a top level comment relating to the theme of the posting about my FGNW hobbyhorse in a legitimate fashion, please don't be guilty of the repeated offense of trying to water down my calculus class with middle school 9/11 concepts and concerns.
Furthermore, you have a skewed view of the audience in this group. Totally unlikely that the uninitiated in 9/11 truth would ever get exposed to this groups. Only truther activists (and lurkers) and agents would ever join.
Now don't let that discourage you with your dumbed down hobbyhorse. You can't let this group be the end station for your laudable words. Save offline so that it can be repurposed later and save you a ton of time on dizzy carousels.
And thus concludes today's "teach the 9/11 activists" episode about courtesy in threads.
//
x60 Eric Sandstrom : just gonna stop right there
2020-02-24
Maxwell Bridges I got to the part where you said WTC destruction are lacking. I’m just gonna stop right there I won’t entertain that.
The towers came down by preplanted explosives and that has been revealed accurately.
https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc
North Tower Exploding by David Chandler
youtube.com
x62 Bob Byron : the DICTUM of responsibility to SUPPORT ones WORDS
2020-02-24
Bob Byron
Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges " my thread on calculus does not hinder any thread about basic math"
lmao, imaging pretending to being SO SMART, you willfully negate the point of the matter in question....[shakes head]....
this is NOT about 'calculus 'vs basic math?????....
this is about the DICTUM of responsibility to SUPPORT ones WORDS pushed within an official scientific context!!!
and you willfully IGNORE proper procedure these 'scientists' must provide, which is the EVIDENCE to support their LIES....
...why????
why do YOU pretend your work is SO MUCH MORE important than those demanding the ones pushing the claims....support and prove them.
why do YOU PRETEND, them supporting themselves is SO unimportant?
?? maybe because you're here to distract from the official LIES and don't want to make notice of their amazing NEW PHYSICS they claim to others???
and more to the point, BASIC science proves this a 'controlled' event'...not 'calculus'...
ALL empirical evidence says what we see X3 on 9-11 are destroyed in a manner that is completely visually consistent with controlled demolition. Explosives are also the only known and proven mechanism for achieving such destruction. There is no objective evidence to suggest WTC7 could have been failed in such a manner without the use of explosive charges.
It looks like a controlled demolition because it is a controlled demolition, end of debate.
this is not all about YOU and how GREAT YOU ARE!!!!!
this is about the LIES the NIST LEADERS push to the WORLD!
.....stick that up your 'calculus'...
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges Furthermore, you have a skewed view of the audience in this group."
we all see who is trying to 'skew' ones belief.
we also see WHO the 'creative-writer' is!!!!
which is also not needed in this group.
9/11 Verified Truth = The Dictum of all Law, Science and proper Debate: Those whom assert must prove.
In order to establish an assertion, the individual/team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.
Facts must be accurate.
Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
homepage.ntu.edu.tw
Rules of debate
Rules of debate
x64 Maxwell C. Bridges : rabbit along with your middle school 9/11 topics
2020-02-24
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, you have so watered down this thread, you may have it. It is yours.
You may rabbit along with your middle school 9/11 topics.
The next thread I start is for FGNW. Please don't make comments there unless you're willing to stay on topic, which is advanced 9/11 concepts and deep state controlling of the message.
//
x66 Bob Byron : I accept your apology
2020-02-24
Maxwell Bridges " you have so watered down this thread, you may have it. It is yours."
and I accept your apology...the only way you can make one....
.
"The next thread I start is for FGNW. Please don't make comments there unless you're willing to stay on topic"
I was...and did.
here is my first response...
"that is the only part that is not lacking....
...maybe someone had a talk with him....."
max.....you are the one who had the intellectual meltdown.
then you proceeded to be a 'dick'.
when have I EVER interfered in any thread you provide......never.
so this is less about 'intellect' and more about , (for some reason) belittling the PROPER DICTUM of those asserting official Gov. statements for the event of 9-11.
it does NOT MATER what did it......
they, ( those FEW pushing this OS BULLSH*T ), must support the FANTASY THEY PUSH!
..you distract from it.
now there is only ONE entity in these groups who willfully tries to undermined the effort to direct RESPONSIBILITY to where it belongs...with the NIST LEADERS and BAZANT .
yeah, you know who I refer to..... and they do very sneaky things to dissuade anyone from discussing the actual OS and pointing out actual facts.
but enough about them.....
The moral of this story for the event of 9-11 times three is, the ones asserting first, that those 'fires-present', are the sole AND ONLY reason why gravity displays all the visual and physical attributes of an 'explosion' DIRECTLY at onset of collapse..
yes, IT IS VERY SIMPLE.......and you you are showing us YOU want to hinder this...'simplicity, EVERYONE understands.
.....perhaps you can tell us why?
x68 Eric Sandstrom : I'm booted also from the fair and civil debate group
2020-02-24
Bob Byron Curious what people run the fair and civil debate group? Im booted also
x70 Bob Byron : duhbunkers all of them
2020-02-24
Eric Sandstrom duhbunkers.......all of them.
none of them were willing to debate the official story....
they tried to use the 'Dictum-post' I always provide, against me...
He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
so I told them I assert NOT ONE of you can support the fires present is the reason gravity pretends to be an 'explosion' X3 only seen occurring on 9-11.
that particular wording seemed to strike a chord with them, so I use it all the time.
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : Chandler purposely did not go far enough
2020-02-24
Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, You misunderstood my comment about "Chandler / Coste] Their premises for WTC destruction are lacking," and the efforts of Mr. Bob Byron to initiate 9/11 middle school topics did not help matters any.
Damn if my other top-level comment didn't already set the stage, but the meat was below the "see more..." fold and you admitted to stopping your reading there. Not a good sign for you.
Chandler's video that you posted (and I'll post again) is great.
https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc
"Their premises" refers to NT. It is a limited hang-out. It could not have been the primary cause of destruction. It could not have caused what we observed in the video, and does not explain anomalous evidence rescued from the debris pile.
I've already posted a link to an article on my blog that takes apart NT. [I'll post it again upon request.]
Chandler purposely did not go far enough. FGNW check all the boxes on what was observed and found later.
Coste has his own issues in trying to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement by framing the discussion as "nuclear blast", which couldn't be further from the truth in the effects FGNW can bring to the picture.
//
North Tower Exploding by David Chandler
youtube.com
x74 Maxwell C. Bridges : Skim through and jump around
2020-02-24
This will make it easy on you. Skim through and jump around in this article, and view Chandler's video in another window as well.
You'll eventually connect the two.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
I'm reminded that the image that comes up for the article is really from a video that is first to appear in that work. The video is one of Mr. Chandler's as well.
//
x76 Eric Sandstrom : an inherent pride in the conspiracy/truth movement
2020-02-29
A great friend of mine for over two decades who believes across-the-board the original account of 9/11 and I went back-and-forth today, I would love to hear your thoughts or similar experiences concerning my friend’s final text which is as follows:
“This approach leads me to the following perceptions: there is an inherent pride(similar Gnosticism) in the “conspiracy/truth” movement that works like this:
1. Unless you embrace what we believe you are in the dark, I will enlighten you.
2. If you reject my help, it’s because you are afraid to accept that I know more than you do and you can’t handle it.
3. This could be because your brain isn’t working correctly.
4. Or it could be because you don’t love people or truth.
“No offense though”
Followed by years of:
“Why?”
“Why not?”
x78 Maxwell C. Bridges : to admit to any of the 9/11 arguments is to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped
2020-02-29
Nah. I liken it to "cognitive dissonance," which I think explains it better.
When you're in the OCT camp, to admit to any of the 9/11 arguments is to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped, that you voted completely wrong, that your government lied to you, that your beliefs about the righteousness of the USA and its actions is wrong, that you condoned the most heinous acts imaginable because you were duped into fear. It is a gross weakness.
Interesting, "cognitive dissonance" applies within the 9/11 Truth Movement (and many other aspects of life.) Once we have won a hard-fought understanding over some phenomenon, we hold to that understanding sometimes even when new analysis might knock down its pillars of support.
Champions of NT as the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction exhibit this. Whether or not NT played a role, the fact that it can be proven (and admitted even by Dr. Steven Jones) to not have been the primary mechanism means that those 9/11 Truthers championing NT were duped into accepting a lesser Truth, an incomplete thesis, a limited hang-out.
//
x80 Bob Byron : giving a DIFFERENT story line
2020-02-29
Bob Byron "to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped"
there you go again giving a DIFFERENT story line.
no one is 'duped'....
the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY TOLD THEM TO PROVE IT!
...and those pushing the LIES, refuse to support their BRAND NEW SCIENCE they push for 9-11.
no one is 'duped'....
the sole authors of the OFFICIAL CLAIMS are willfully REFUSING to provide EVIDENCE, per their agenda.
for both towers...
and WTC7.
with a presidential pardon allowing them to LIE.
in the form of Executive Order 13470 of July 30, 2008
"(d) Protect intelligence and intelligence sources, methods, and activities from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with guidance from the Director"
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-08-04/pdf/E8-17940.pdf
making the Directors of all gov. agency's the right to withhold ANYTHINJG they want if it has the slightest to do with 9-11.
even the NATURAL progression of fire and gravity.
so, the NIST Director said....NO!....we can't show you ANY evidence.
Simple fact: if any of that building's potential energy went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall....Since it did fall at free-fall, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.
Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
x82 Maxwell C. Bridges : There is nothing OCT about FGNW
2020-02-29
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, guess we just proven that you are a bot.
Just because I have the facts that shoot the legs out from underneath NT, it does not mean that I promote the OCT in any way, shape, or form.
Here is my premise.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
There is nothing OCT about FGNW.
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
x84 Bob Byron : involved since 2005
2020-02-29
Maxwell Bridges guess we just proved that you are a bot."
really max?.......see ya!!!
Bob Byron
..."When you're in the OCT camp, to admit to any of the 9/11 arguments is to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped"
Maxwell....I have been involved with this since 2005 when the NIST LEADERS report came out.
then the structural community DEMANDED the evidence/proof.
the NIST LEADERS refuse to provide....TO THIS DAY.
now....how bout you explain HOW I am ..'duped"?
...or ANYONE demanding these AMAZING Gov. scientists SUPPORT their 'first-time' AGENDA of amazing 'science'....that is of yet to be supported by ANYONE...
NO ASCE paper in support of the pushed OFFICIAL AGENDA.....
but no, lets not discuss that......lets just push 'nukes' and NOT give any reason why we are....
why are you forever DISTRACTING away from the OFFICIAL LIES?
..and then pretend they are of no value.......
if that is true, then COURT has no value.
gee, then those who assert, can say ANYTHING they want WITHOUT the need to prove or support their 'assertions'.????
x86 Maxwell C. Bridges : not promoting the OCT in any way, shape, or form
2020-02-29
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Just because I have the facts that shoot the legs out from underneath NT, it does not mean that I promote the OCT in any way, shape, or form.
Here is my premise.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
There is nothing OCT about FGNW.
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
Maxwell Bridges
Oops. Here's the blog posting that slaughters the NT sacred cow.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Read it and discover my sources of information. I was not the first to put "Beyond Misinformation" in my title.
//
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : kicked out, without any warning or even harsh words
2020-03-02
{mcb: New Posting 2020-03-02 deleted.}
I can't seem to get to the group "9/11 Verified Truth". I suspect maybe they kicked me out, but if so, that would have been without any warning, or even harsh words, for that matter.
Last I recall, I had a thread relating Chandler / Coste (topic of the posting) to my FGNW hobby-horse. I likened my efforts to a 9/11 calculus course, which was constantly interrupted by Mr. Bob Byron, who insisted on teaching a 9/11 middle school math class that attempted to roll the nuclear discussion all the way back to Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT).
Once that thread was completely pissed away but noticing a buried comment from Mr. Eric Sandstrom with a video from David Chandler, I created a top-level comment (new thread) that re-posted that (or another David Chandler) video worthy of discussion. For completeness, I replied with a link to my FGNW work that references and discusses the video.
*BINGO* Now suddenly, I don't see in my notification queue any reactions / replies from that group that could get me there. Not listed as a short-cut...
Looks like I might have hit a nerve.
//
======================= New Posting 2020-03-02
Before he kicked me out of this group, Mr. Bob Bryon laid out his credentials: "I have been involved with this since 2005 when the NIST LEADERS report came out."
For such a long tenure in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I would be interested in links to Mr. Byron's earlier efforts. Surely he has had experiences where his worthy words were deleted, purged, and suppressed when in forums owned by others, thereby giving him the idea that he should be responsible for the preservation and publication of his own efforts in forums that he better controls.
Alas, such legacy is unfortunately missing, and we must take Mr. Bryon's boasting at face value.
Mr. Byron then demands: "how bout you explain HOW I am ..'duped'?"
Gladly. And as coincidence would have it, exactly 8 years ago today, I wrote about issues that I had with Dr. Steven Jones' work.
+++ begin quote (2012-03-02)
The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' science has been provided several times. I'll repeat it most briefly both for new readers and scientific-wannabe's-but-aren't like yourself [referring to Mr. Whitten aka Mr. Rogue].
Dr. Jones wrote a paper based on blindly-accepted measurements of radiation at ground zero from govt sources and performs with it scientific slight of hand: (unvetted) radiation measurements did not match the radiation signature of three known nuclear weapon types, therefore he leaps to his conclusions that no nuclear weapons were used. Does he speculate about other nuclear sources and unknown nuclear weapons that could account for the (unvetted) radiation measurements? Nope. He lamented frequently about issues with other govt reports (e.g., timeliness, voracity), yet has no issue swallowing the one on radiation measurement?!
So that a vacuum isn't left in taking nukes off the table, Dr. Jones gets credit for discovering nano-thermite in the dust which can indeed burn very hot and without air, drawing its oxygen to burn from the chemical reaction.
The problem here is that neither Dr. Jones, nor Mr. Ryan, nor Mr. Cole, nor you [Mr. Whitten] bothered with "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to run numbers on nano-thermite's (or other incendiaries') burn-rate to estimate quantities required to account for the duration of hot-spots... because this suggests massive, totally unrealistic quantities. And when the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth run with it to explain features in the destruction that "boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves it cannot, he doesn't correct the record.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/03/scientific-critique-of-dr-jones-science.html
+++ end quote
So, Mr. Byron, you were blinded by Dr. Jones' PhD and accepted unquestioned and unchallenged Dr. Jones' "nuke rebudiation" amd nano-thermite. There again, despite NT's glaring holes and its inability to account for anomalous evidence in NIST videos, you've been duped by Dr. Jones' NT.
Eleven hours ago, Mr. Byron took offense that I mentioned "guess we just proved that you are a bot" in reference to his repeated comments that try to debunk early OCT efforts. He replied: "really max?.......see ya!!!"
//
x90 Bob Byron : fire and GRAVITY!
tbd
Bob Byron
Bob Byron max....wtf is YOUR problem?????
Bob Byron
Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges Gladly. And as coincidence would have it, exactly 8 years ago today, I wrote about issues that I had with Dr. Steven Jones' work."
ROIFLMAO!!!
WHO the 'F' is discussing Jones, NOT me....so why do YOU bring him in??????
oh, as some object to use against me, [shakes head]???????
maxie.....THAT has NOTHING to do with demanding the FIRST ASSERTIONS be proven!!
which is what I discuss....
fire and GRAVITY!
you know, the DICTUM of all Law, SCIENCE and proper DEBATE...
those whom assert MUST PROVE.
why don't you tell me why the AMAZING NIST LEADERS refuse to support their own bullsh*t?
and why don;t you tell me why you atack me using BULLSH*T I don;t even discuss?
...since you seem to NOT mention them in all that bullsh*t you wrote above.....but that is all I discuss..
I following dictum.....you are being a 'dick'.
now, seems you have an issue with me...and are basically using NOTHING I provide against me...to show me in the light you suggest.
... you sound like now, a pathetic lying DUHbunktard.
same method of operation...
attacking my PERSON and not show one one thing I provide as incorrect.
.
":So, Mr. Byron, you were blinded by Dr. Jones' "
?????WHERE do I MENTION JONES?????????????
no where.....YOU DO!!!!
and you do so to purposely attack me.
using something I DO NOT DISCUSS!
???????..I NEVER MENTION JONES!!!....I do not have to.
??so maxie....is that the ONLY way you can formulate an attack against me?....to LIE and insinuate something that has no truth to it...
Stanley.....I have no problem with this person of 'slight' character in being here....
but if he is going to OUTRIGHT lie and use those LIES and bogus information to personally attack me, then I am going to remove him from this group.
you can add him back....
and as soon as he mouths off I will remove him till somehow this cycle ends.
I'm not taking crap from anyone.
it also does major damage to this groups credibility......
Bob Byron
Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges "":So, Mr. Byron, you were blinded by Dr. Jones' ""
no maxie the 'story-teller', I'm following the DICTUM required when those who assert within the context of SCIENCE!!!!
rulesonline.com
you are welcome to provide 'different' rules for procedure....but this is what all Law, Science and proper Debate use.
He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
so why are YOU against demanding..'truth'?
now, the NIST LEADERS are the ones claiming that the fires present on 9-11, are what makes gravity pretend to be an EXPLOSIVE FORCE ....
by ?somehow? deliberately mimicking all the visual and physical attributes of an EXPLOSION!
gee maxie, ....how do you think fire and GRAVITY did this, as the OFFICIAL STORY claims?????
do you think for and gravity did this, X3?
yes or no question...
well the Gov. scientists say 'YES".....guess the next thing is to get them to PROVE it..
that was how it was done BEFORE 9-11...but for SOME REASON, you are against doing so FOR 9-11.
so why would one (YOU), parade around pretending there is NO point to someone demanding..."PROVE IT"!!!
as the structural community has been doing since 2005.
Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
maxie, do YOU think this is an act from the fires present and GRAVITY?
yes or no question...
if yes, then you support the official story!
if "no", then the next step is to CHALLENGE THE OFFICIAL STORY and demand they prove it.
not to IGNORE their LIES, PRETENDING they are true, to move onto your 'select' agenda.
so why do you think there is NOT ONE single ASCE paper in support of the NIST LEADERS and Bazants collapse theory?
all these years and NOT ONE PEER in support of the pushed agenda?
now why would someone in a group called "9-11 VERIFIED TRUTH' want to purposely trample on these bits of FACT I provide?????
and then pretend they are so much better than the average person....????????
x92 Maxwell C. Bridges : agreement about the 9/11 failures of NIST and various other agencies
2020-03-02
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Touche on the game playing! I bow at the feet of your expertise. Such a "Michael Jackson gymnast of 9/11 concepts," appearing to go forwards when really moving backwards.
You and I are in agreement about the 9/11 failures of NIST and various other agencies in giving the public the complete 9/11 picture. But you act as if we aren't.
Nature abhors a vacuum. So after you have given your 9/11 middle school lesson about official lies on airplane impacts, jet fuel and office furnishing fires, and pulverization and ejection of content at near gravitational acceleration through paths of greatest resistance, what do you explain it with?
I came into 9/11 Truth from a physics angle, and certainly most 9/11 Truthers agree that "energy had to be added" in order to achieve those anomalous outcomes. To be sure, pulverization and ejection of content are massive energy sinks.
You wrote in one of your three comments in a row: "WHO the 'F' is discussing Jones, NOT me....so why do YOU bring him in??????"
My assumption about your 9/11 views was that you, like most in AE9/11Truth and the 9/11 Truth Movement, champion nano-thermite. If so, the name "Dr. Steven Jones" is very relevant and fundamental to your views. And if so, you leave yourself open to a whole litany of abuse for your spinning around discussions that expose Jonesian lies and that of AE9/11Truth.
Based on your comment, quite possibly my assumption of your NT views is wrong. In which case I apologize, but poke at the "nature abhorring a vacuum" hole in your debate: with what do you explain the anomalies in the destruction? It is okay for your initial scientific guesses to be wrong, because our discussion will prove what is wrong, whittle away dross, and get at the truth.
You wrote: "gee maxie, ....how do you think fire and GRAVITY did this, as the OFFICIAL STORY claims????? maxie.....THAT has NOTHING to do with demanding the FIRST ASSERTIONS be proven!! which is what I discuss.... fire and GRAVITY! you know, the DICTUM of all Law, SCIENCE and proper DEBATE... those whom assert MUST PROVE."
My response to this confusion from you is your first comment re-loaded and fired back: "[Mr. Byron]....wtf is YOUR problem?????" Talk about speaking right passed each other!
From my perspective, it is as if your bot algorithms can't handle depth and detail. They certainly aren't capable of reading outside material, digesting various points, and synthesizing a changed view influenced by this information. Their default is to assume opponent is "a coincidence theorist" and OCTer, and starts cranking a spin on the old carousel called "Fire and Gravity."
Rule 2. "Each team has two or three constructive speeches, and two to three rebuttal speeches. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and the rebuttals alternate: negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative. The affirmative has both the first and last speeches of the debate."
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
The links to two of my FGNW articles can be considered my constructive speeches affirmative for FGNW. [Sad that they have been linked into our conversations more than once already, and it can be proven you haven't read them yet.]
According to your own rules, you were supposed to provide a rebuttal. Reading and understanding your debate opponent's position is fundamental to the debate process. Bot-fail.
Funny how your algorithms thrash mostly because your database hasn't accumulated any "negative FGNW", so you whip out the capital letters with such logical gems as: "maxie, do YOU think this is an act from the fires present and GRAVITY? yes or no question... if yes, then you support the official story! if "no", then the next step is to CHALLENGE THE OFFICIAL STORY and demand they prove it."
["Agree with thy advisary quickly whilst though art in the way with him."~Jesus]
You are correct that from YOUR position behind me on the 9/11 Truth spectrum, YOUR next steps are to "CHALLENGE THE OFFICIAL STORY and demand they prove it." Have fun with that.
Don't go assigning me YOUR busy work. Been there (challenging the official story). Done that. My blog and website go back 16 years, re-purposed efforts from many different debate forums. I got legacy. [You? Not so much.]
As I had pompously and arrogantly brought to your attention early in our exchanges, I am a few steps, "a few lessons, a few levels, a few layers, a few laps ahead of you in discovering Truth in 9/11 with nuclear components..."
Yeah, I'm not quite reading off of you vibes of sincerity (or coherence.)
Because if you were, say, sincere in your seeking 9/11 truth, you would have demonstrated objectivity and an open-mind by exploring my 9/11 FGNW premises. Doesn't mean they have to initially convince you, but you'd find nuggets of truth and maybe nuggets of contention that would have fed the next round of discussion (not just here, but back when we first crossed FB paths.) At the very least, you'd recognize that the very existence and promotion of my FGNW premise "challenges the official story." That you don't recognize this is just another gap in your AI algorithms.
//
x94 Bob Byron : NIST LEADERS are liars
2020-03-02
Bob Byron
Bob Byron Maxwell "But you act as if we aren't."
not at all.....but you sure seem to
."?debate"?
...for one, we are not debating anything.
you basically attacked my person.....not anything i provided.....that is what set me off!
EVERYTHING I provide is sourced......every single item I discuss is sourced to taught science, the scientific FINDINGS of the NIST investigation, and the LIES of the NIST LEADERS, ignoring their own investigation to go elsewhere in order to support the BUSH agenda to invade other countries BASED on this.fire/GRAVITY event....(that did not take place!)
....can ya see where i'm going with this?.
I still have no clue what your problem is....
what I see here in this group is ..
I provide the facts showing the NIST LEADERS the liars they are.....
and after EASILY showing the NIST LEADERS the liars they are.....you provide the alternate that could do what is seen by all occurring ONLY on that day...because the facts show it was NOT fire and gravity.
....can ya see where I'm going with this???????
.
"I came into 9/11 Truth from a physics angle, and certainly most 9/11 Truthers agree that "energy had to be added" "
abso-fukin-lutely!....and with the THOUSANDS of different combinations as to what it 'could be', fire and gravity is NOT one of them, and that is the OS.
.
"According to your own rules, you were supposed to provide a rebuttal. "
to what?
one, they are not "my" rules"...they are parliamentary rules FOR ALL!
so again.....I'm not debating you...?????
and as I said prior, I DID look into the Nuke idea LONG ago with that European guy who FIRST brought it to the truth movement.....way before you were around...
but again, it does not matter what we THINK the alternative is, THEY MUST PROVE AND SUPPORT fire and gravity..
end of discussion.
and if they are forced, you KNOW they can't.
and when it's PROVE they can't and the WORLD sees they can't.....what is THAT going to do to that sitting Admin. that USED THE LIES as a means to invade other Countries?
I know some die-hard Americans who will be VERY PISSED!
but again, for SOME reason you seem to be against and do not want that necessary event to take place...
?why?
oh.....and your reply could NOT be more 'off-topic'....
Bob Byron
Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges At the very least, you'd recognize that the very existence and promotion of my FGNW premise "challenges the official story."
no, demanding the AUTHORS of the official story to support and prove the official story, CHALLENGES THE OFFICIAL STORY!
it's called PEER REVIEW!
and they are support to validate, verify someones scientific 'hypothesis'...
...there are NONE in support of the OS....NOT ONE DAMN THING from ASCE?......and that causes you no concern?..so you ignore to push your 'agenda'..
and Max.....you provide an alternative that YOU did not think of yourself.
you are riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research before you....and if I could remember his name, I would tell you.
but I am sure you know who he is....
.
Because if you were, say, sincere in your seeking 9/11 truth, you would have demonstrated objectivity and an open-mind by exploring my 9/11 FGNW premises.
already did that and the scale weighs in favor of what I do now.
for no one cares about what you provide UNTIL they have a reason to listen to what you provide...
and the reason would be in thinking this is a normal reaction to 'resistance' from 'gravity alone'.....and 'easily' showing them wrong'.
x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : if those authors were sincere...
2020-03-02
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, you wrote:
"demanding the AUTHORS of the official story to support and prove the official story, CHALLENGES THE OFFICIAL STORY!"
Maybe if those authors were sincere -- which is an unspoken requirement of your debate rules --, it wouldn't already be 18 years after the fact with neither viable OCT explanation nor defense.
All of your sophomoric antics play right into the hands of disinformation, because you let the OCT authors frame the discussion. Worse, you're asking the equivalent of "the police should investigate themselves", or "Trump's appointed judges should rule on his misdeeds." Like I said, this is going backwards and not forwards. "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon.
Here is a munged together quote from you: "and as I said prior, I DID look into the Nuke idea LONG ago with that European guy who FIRST brought it to the truth movement.....way before you were around... and Max.....you provide an alternative that YOU did not think of yourself. you are riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research before you....and if I could remember his name, I would tell you."
The nuke idea that you looked into "LONG ago" is not my FGNW premise. FAIL! Damn, Mr. Byron, yet another indication that you still haven't read my FGNW premise.
I collected nuggets of truth from many sources. Whereas I claim neither ownership of the nuggets nor bragging rights for being the first to promote them, I am -- as far as I know -- the first to pull them together into a cohesive and comprehensive premise [that you still haven't read.]
If you are going to claim that I am "riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research" before me, then the onus is on you to defend the assertion. As you wrote: "those whom assert MUST PROVE." Otherwise, your plagarism claim is a lie that will get stuck to your forehead like a Dole banana sticker.
I had written: "Because if you were, say, sincere in your seeking 9/11 truth, you would have demonstrated objectivity and an open-mind by exploring my 9/11 FGNW premises."
You replied: "already did that and the scale weighs in favor of what I do now."
Won't be giving me any pleasure to plaster over your face with those fruit stickers as rewards for your lies.
Where did the following quote 1 come from? [The embedded quote 2 already has attribution.]
+++ Begin quote 1
The official fabel about the World Trade Center (WTC) towers' destruction on 9/11 claims (1) that the building stories above the impact levels became massive pile drivers that acted solely under the forces of gravity to pulverize the underlying structures to the ground and (2) that no extra energy was added from unknown sources.
However, many videos of the destruction of the WTC towers expose anomalies in the form of (1) destruction at free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection that defy physics, unless energy was added from other sources.
Assuming the damage and fires from the impacting planes could have initiated the collapses of the towers (for which they were designed), the structure underneath the falling upper stories would have and should have resisted & slowed the destruction wave, if the collapse wasn't arrest completely well above ground level.
The pulverization of content and the ejection of content are energy sinks that take away from the kinetic energy of a "pile driver" and logically would have further slowed the destruction from free-fall speeds. Moreover, as observed in many videos and discussed by physics teacher David Chandler, the "pile driver" of upper stories accordianed in on themselves and weren't a cohesive mass anymore by the time the wave of destruction progressed below the levels where the airplanes impacted.
From "BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7":
+++ Begin quote 2
A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
+++ End quote 2
Thus, the official government & media version of 9/11 events pertaining to the WTC cannot be true.
+++ End quote 1
Mr. Byron, where did quote 1 come from (URL, section number & title)? Who wrote it?
//
x98 Bob Byron : riding the coat tails of Khalezov and Dr. Ward
2020-03-02
Maxwell "If you are going to claim that I am "riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research" before me, then the onus is on you to defend the assertion."
Dimitri A. Khalezov....Ed Ward, MD....among others....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ed_ward/use_of_abombs.htm
now please knock off this 'pissing-contest' you insist on playing here...I have no time for it.
you do what you do, and I will continue to do what I do.
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : Coat tails of Dr. Andre Gsponer?
2020-03-02
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Your reply does not prove your assertion that I am "riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research" before me. All it proves is that YOU have reading comprehension problems, YOU have NO ability to do research, and YOU can't count.
With regards to the latter, you wrote "someone else ... did all the research" and then you list two names (Dimitri Khalezov and Ed Ward). Two "someone's" is not equal to one someone, which is your premise. FAIL right out of the gate.
Because I'm a fair and generous fellow, I'll allow you to list more than one "someone's", but your half-assed efforts [your trend line] don't explain specifics of the research that I allegedly stole. Quotes side-by-side from their work and mine is requisite and missing from you proof.
The dubious smear tactic you're trying to deploy is that Khalezov's and Ward's premises are 100% mine. Their premises are not; they both champion singular-per-tower deep under-ground nukes. Thus, you FAILED to comprehend that which you FAILED to read, which isn't just my work but theirs.
[For the record, the only potential remaining nuggets from Khalezov that might have value, are that NYC made an additional requirement for building permits on skycrapers that the plans also include end-of-life demolition plans, and that allegedly the builders of WTC proposed nuclear devices. With regards to Dr. Ward, I went into his source material (government reports on dust and tritium) and validated Ward's value-add math that proves Dr. Jones mischaracterizing the measured quantities.]
Funny that you didn't name-drop Dr. Andre Gsponer. Major FAIL. So your FAILURES in research & debate are stacking up on each other and on your reputation.
For the sake of discussion and again because I am so magnanimous, fair, generous, pompous, and arrogant, let's continue with your assertion that others did research that now has worked its way into my premise. SO THE FUCK WHAT?!!
When I incorporated aspects of the work of others, (a) I quoted them, (b) I gave attribution to the quote or concept, and (c) I have links [that were valid at the time my work was being written.]
Seems to me, this is what scholarly work does. It builds on the research of others. [More FAIL points in your skew that tries to frame this as a bad thing.]
Again because you didn't read my works, you don't know that I also used the work of USGS, RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, NIST, AE9/11Truth, David Chandler, Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Heinz Pommer, the Anonomous Physicist, Jeff Prager, Dr. Ward, Dr. Gsponer, etc. The list is long. Were you to look really closely, you'd even find a link to my raw research compiled from my local institution of higher education during several months of unemployment 2014-2015.
I liberally rescued nuggets of truth from all over as the foundation for my premise -- with proper quotations, correct attributions, and links.
Can your lame efforts boast this? Not so much.
In fact, a bigger problem of your 9/11 truth promotional efforts is that you accept at face value -- unquestioned and unchallenged -- the works and conclusions of others [even if you are too damn lazy to provide quotations and proper attribution.]
In conclusion, your inability to prove your assertion in your distracting carousel spins dings your objectivity, your reputation, and your sincerity in the 9/11 Truth realm. Kudos.
P.S. And you also FAILED the simple challenge of explaining where a certain quote came from and who wrote it. A typical bot-ism.
//
Part 4: FGNW Discussions with Peter Mitch, Josh Froze, Seven Goboom, Victor Clemente, Corey Aldridge, Wayne Coste
x102 Peter Mitch : a civil engineer?
Is anyone here qualified as a civil engineer?
x104 Josh Froze : qualified professional civil and structural engineers will tell you the buildings were blown up with explosives in controlled demolitions
2020-07-18
So the answer is yes. Yes there are many qualified professional civil and structural engineers that will tell you the buildings were most definitely, scientifically and obviously blown up with explosives in controlled demolitions.
x106 Seven Goboom : staying strong for 9/11 justice
2020-07-18
Thank you for staying strong for 9/11 justice. God bless you and yours.
x108 Victor Clemente : Sad truth
2020-07-18
Sad truth
x110 Maxwell C. Bridges : "explosives" trips you up, because it malframes the observable evidence
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze, The word "explosives" trips you up, because it malframes the observable evidence. Controlled demolition? Yes. Explosives? Not the primary mechanism of destruction.
Fourth generation nuclear weapons were.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x112 Maxwell C. Bridges : "God damn it, Maxwell! We've had this discussion before!"
2020-07-18
At this point, allow me demostrate my ESP abilities by writing what you're thinking, Mr. Josh Froze, "God damn it, Maxwell! We've had this discussion before!"
Indeed we have, and you didn't fair very well. Too much cognitive dissonance.
Part 8: FB Froze & Porter FGNW
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/attempts-at-rational-911-discussion.html
//
Attempts at Rational 9/11 Discussion
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x114 Josh Froze : debunked 4th generation nukes many many times before
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges, yes we have debunked 4th generation nukes many many times before.
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : Cough up the links
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze, you make the lame claim that "we have debunked 4th generation nukes many times before," YOU PROVE IT.
Cough up the links. And make sure it addresses eventually in some form or another all of the sections in my 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case.
By the way, who is "we"? Certainly not you.
*snap of the fingers*
You are now awoke from your hypnotic suggestion.
//
x118 Josh Froze : prove they even exist!
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
you prove they even exist!
x120 Maxwell C. Bridges : Would a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science publication suffice?
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze, Sure thing. Would a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science publication suffice? Great! Here you go.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Dr. Andre Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11. The above article was published in 2005.
That date is important, because its publication was before Dr. Steven Jones's lame "reputiation" (2007) and Dr. Wood's book (2010). Proves that these PhD's of 9/11 did a shitty job of researching nukes.
Meanwhile, let the record show that your efforts to PROVE that you (with the help of others to form a "we") "debunked 4th generation nukes many many times before" has fallen way short of success. Of those many times, certainly a single URL would persist that could handily substantiate your claim and you could easily paste it into this discussion and negate any hint that you are a poser and liar.
You are all hat and no cattle.
//
x122 Josh Froze : discussing the elaboration and characteristics of a forthcoming generation of war-fighting nuclear weapons
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
read your own papers!
"Sixty years after the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, this paper is discussing the elaboration and characteristics of a forthcoming generation of war-fighting nuclear weapons which has been under serious consideration for more than fifty years, and which may become a reality within a decade or two.
Where do they say they exist?
Image may contain: text
x124 Maxwell C. Bridges : you've been a weasel for quite some time
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze, you are being quite the weasel. You wrote: "we have debunked 4th generation nukes many times before." Yet you have failed to provide even one link to your previous efforts.
I only need to point to this FB thread to demonstrate that you've been a weasel for quite some time.
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176
Congratulations!
Meanwhile, I wrote:
++++
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.
//
x126 Josh Froze : have fun with your theoretical nukes!
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
have fun with your theoretical nukes! You can’t even show they exist little alone provide evidence they were used on 9/11! Where’s your head?
x128 Maxwell C. Bridges : you made a bold claim that you have not lifted a finger to prove.
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze, the record of this thread clearly shows you making a bold claim that you have not lifted a finger to prove. It was a simple task at that: give us the URLs where you and your posse debunked legitimately the use of FGNW on 9/11.
No link? No go.
Meanwhile, I have a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science journal and 15 years of publications before its publication that tell a different FGNW story than the hypnotic suggestion that you offer.
If you are genuine and sincere, you'd have the ability to change your mind and at least move onto the fence about the topic. Nope. You act the agent. A lame-ass one at that.
You can run along, now. You have nothing valuable to contribute and only implode your character and reputation with every comment.
//
x130 Josh Froze : I have debunked “mini nukes” 1000 times and don’t save links
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
you’ve given me nothing to debunk. You’ve given me a theoretical 4th generation nuke in which nowhere I can find exists! So if you don’t have a 4th generation example we can learn from where the hell do you find evidence of them on 9/11?
I have debunked “mini nukes” 1000 times (sorry I don’t save links to every time a mini nuker pops his head up) I have kept some notes on my old account, first of all there was no measure of radiation, second there is nothing “mini” about the explosion of a “mini nuke”, now in the case of a 4th generation nuke it claims it could explode in the 1 tnt equivalent which is a lot smaller than any mini nuke so that’s a start, and it claims it would give “less” radiation, how much radiation? Is there a 4th generation nuke we can measure the radiation? Well where are you getting you test info from a 4th generation nuke which as far as anyone can find, doesn’t exist?
So why don’t you tell me in your own words what makes you yourself think 4th generation nukes were used?
I have not entertained 9/11 “debates” for over 2 years now! As you know I was admin of the largest 9/11 Truth Movement group on Facebook for years and I ate sh*t and breathed 9/11 all day every day for 10 years! I don’t have the patience anymore for debunking the same thing every day, day in, day out, day after day, over and over and over and over and over, the same dam thing every single day of my life anymore! I got better things to do after 10 years of it every day!!
x132 Josh Froze : can’t be a decent admin
2020-07-18
Josh Froze
Maxwell Bridges
I can’t be a decent admin anymore because I simply don’t have the patience for it anymore. I respect those who still can do it. I however have too short of fuse, I guess that’s what being obsessed with something everyday for 10 years does to a person...
x134 Corey Aldridge : Ground Zero
2020-07-18
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/tibor_arany56/ground-zero-the-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-centre
Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre
SLIDESHARE.NET
x136 Josh Froze : look up the smallest nuclear explosion possible
2020-07-18
Corey Aldridge
go look up the smallest nuclear explosion possible and then show me on 9/11 anywhere near an explosion like that!!! And learn what radiation is and how it’s measured and ask yourself how a nuclear bomb goes off and leaves no higher levels of radiation measured on Geiger counter.
Then please stop with the nuclear nonsense!
x138 Maxwell C. Bridges : the wisdom of saving your work
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
so in other words, you admit to being a liar and a fraud.
Lie #1: "you’ve given me nothing to debunk."
*Cough.* Dr. Andre Gsponer. Tell me which of the late 3rd generation nuclear devices or early 4th generation devices described in his PEER-REVIEWED paper in a REPUTABLE science publication could be applied to the observed WTC destruction.
Lie #2: "I have debunked “mini nukes” 1000 times"
Not just a liar, but an idiot. After you allegedly debunked mini-nukes the second time, you would have observed the wisdom of saving your work off-line as well as occasionally the links where you posted your glorious endeavors. Such would have made very light work of the other 998 times: post a goto link or copy-and-paste your stellar passages.
This thread has links posted to FB discussions from 2016 and to where I re-published them in a more consolidated fashion. You were just as much a weasel then as you are now. I'd be willing to wager that you STILL have not read my article, nor that of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
BTW, FGNW is not the same thing as mini-nukes. So, trying to get those alleged 1000 mini-nuke debunkings to apply to FGNW automatically makes your claims here suspect as that of agent troll.
Kind of like AE9/11Truth trying with FAQ #13 / FAQ #15 to debunk "a nuclear blast" on 9/11. Guess what? I agree that 9/11 did not use "a nuclear blast" as the primary destructive element. When you frame the nukes wrong or their outcome wrong, your conclusions are also wrong and hint to infiltration. [Highly energetic neutrons released in a targeted fashion upwards from many devices and representing 80% of the nuclear yield from already tactical yield devices would cause different effects than the "blast wave".
Here's a great quote from you:
"So why don’t you tell me in your own words what makes you yourself think 4th generation nukes were used?"
Owing to you having lost patience after "only" 10 years of 9/11 debates (my website is 50% older than that), you becoming deserving of being called "a fucking idiot." How so?
My fucking blog posting, which you have yet to read, already tells you IN MY OWN WORDS what make me think FGNW did the 9/11 trick.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
I did my homework and have turned it in for review. You? All you have is your lame claim that you supposedly did your homework 1000 times and have absolutely squat to show for it.
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x140 Josh Froze : me read through 100 pages of crap?
2020-07-18
Josh Froze
So you don’t want to just say what makes you think 4th gen nukes were used?
Josh Froze
You want me to read through 100 pages of crap? Just tell me what stands out to you that you think 4th gen nukes were used? It shouldn’t be that hard.
x142 Maxwell C. Bridges : you forfeit the right to call it "crap" if your responses here prove that you never read it
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
only if you used big fonts would the 19 sections amount to 100 printed pages. Demonstrates yet again your monumental unfamiliarity with the work in question.
But yes -- however many printed pages it actually is -- I expect you to read it all.
But the very fact that the sections expand/collapse makes it much easier for you to skip around.
By the way, you forfeit the right to call it "crap" if your responses here prove that you never read it.
Meanwhile, owing to your reading laziness, you try to shift the onus on me to "Just tell me what stands out to you that you think 4th gen nukes were used?"
Allow me to call your attention to Section 2. "What is special about FGNW?" Pity that your own reading didn't get you that far.
Thus it is proven, that you were assigning me busy work that you had no intention of reading. You are not sincere and are not debating in good faith.
... In other words, you haven't changed since our 2016 encounters. What a douche!
//
x144 Josh Froze : Even 1 ton TNT is far above and beyond anything we see at the Towers
2020-07-18
Josh Froze
Maxwell Bridges
part 2 did not answer my question. First of all assuming there is a fantasy land of yours where these 4th gen nukes exist (only in your world) what I’m asking is what phenomenon on 9/11 makes you think it was a nuke that can’t be explained by a chemical explosion and/or nanothermate propellant?
We both know the Towers didn’t fall from gravity, that part I’m sure we can agree on, and you seem to not give any credence to Judy Wood’s direct energy weapon nonsense, so what exactly is it that you don’t understand about the collapse to have to figure it has to be some sort of nuclear weapon?
Josh Froze
What characteristic of this hypothetical 4th gen nuke is there you are observing to justify it?
Josh Froze
Can you show me and point and say see here, this must have been done by a nuke?
Josh Froze
This 4th gen nuke I’m assuming leaves no radiation trace as well? Because I do know and have saved a record of a guy that was reading a radiation device before during and after the collapse and trust me if there was radiation it would show up on that, I know because I used to work with radiation with a very similar device.
Josh Froze
Maxwell Bridges
Even 1 ton TNT is far above and beyond anything we see at the Towers. The explosions at the Towers are equivalent to high convention chemical explosions in the 1-2 R.E range! (1-2 kg of TNT!)
Josh Froze
So your nuke doesn’t leave any radiation and the explosion is in the 1-2 R.E range the exact same as conventional chemical explosives but it has to be a “4th generation nuke” WHY?
Josh Froze
I can say they used nanothermate because I can point and say look here see, this is the nanothermate they actually found and tested and analyzed, and here is the melted steel beams and the white smoke and the molten iron spheres in the dust etc etc etc
What are you pointing at that says look here see this is evidence of a theoretical 4th gen nuke?
Josh Froze
Maxwell Bridges
what alleged 4th gen Nuclear explosion are you comparing to? Because l can’t find any 4th gen nukes to draw analysts from because last time I checked they don’t exist!
Josh Froze
You want me to save this link so I can have proof of debunking you once? If I saved every link I debunked somebody’s nuclear theories on 9/11 I’d run out of cloud space!! Lol
x146 Maxwell C. Bridges : the whiff of busy work, but I'll bite anyway
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze, here is part 1 of 3 to answer your many spamming inquiries, which have the whiff of busy work that you will most likely promptly ignore. I don't write this for you, but for the latter-day lurker readers here and elsewhere.
Mr. Froze wrote: "What characteristic of this hypothetical 4th gen nuke is there you are observing to justify it?"
Allow me to call your attention to these sections.
4. Evidence of High Heat
5. Horse-Shoes, Arches, "Steel Doobies", and "the Meteor"
6. EMP and Vehicle Damage
7. Continually Regenerated Fine Particles
8. Radiation => Nukes
9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras
10. First Responder Ailments
11. Audio Evidence
12. Video Evidence
13. Debris Pile Evidence
Mr. Froze wrote: "Can you show me and point and say see here, this must have been done by a nuke?"
I'll not let you malframe it as simply "a nuke." Use the initials of its proper name: FGNW.
5. Horse-Shoes, Arches, "Steel Doobies", and "the Meteor"
Note that nobody in the NT camp -- no one from AE9/11 Truth -- make even the feeblest attempt to speculate how NT was placed / configured to achieve these wonders.
// Part 1/3
Part 2/3
Mr. Froze wrote: "This 4th gen nuke I’m assuming leaves no radiation trace as well? Because I do know and have saved a record of a guy that was reading a radiation device before during and after the collapse and trust me if there was radiation it would show up on that, I know because I used to work with radiation with a very similar device."
Radiation measurements were not prompt and were even delayed by a couple of days. After seeing the hatchet job NIST did on WTC-1/2 and WTC-7 analysis and the 9/11 Commission report, accepting the radiation reports unquestioned and unchallenged (as Dr. Steven Jones and AE9/11 Truth have done) is a great disinformation coup pulled over on the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Here's a kicker on radiation that you'll love. Recorded evidence of radiation leaching off the debris piles in the NIST videos.
9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras
Mr. Froze wrote: "Even 1 ton TNT is far above and beyond anything we see at the Towers. The explosions at the Towers are equivalent to high convention chemical explosions in the 1-2 R.E range! (1-2 kg of TNT!)"
Maybe this is the appropriate size of the individual FGNW devices, whereby we can assume 3 or 4 detonation levels and 4 or so devices per level, mounted around the inner core and sparing what later became known as the spire.
Mr. Froze wrote: "So your nuke doesn’t leave any radiation and the explosion is in the 1-2 R.E range the exact same as conventional chemical explosives but it has to be a “4th generation nuke” WHY?"
As discussed, the FGNW did leave radiation traces. Whether or not we assume your 1-2 R.E range is accurate, remember that 80% of the yield is released as highly energetic neutrons. You have been weaseling out of doing the thought experiment into what effects this would have and do they more closely match the pulverized remains?
// Part 2/3
Part 3/3
Mr. Froze wrote: "I can say they used nanothermate because I can point and say look here see, this is the nanothermate they actually found and tested and analyzed, and here is the melted steel beams and the white smoke and the molten iron spheres in the dust etc etc etc What are you pointing at that says look here see this is evidence of a theoretical 4th gen nuke?"
Actually, you cannot say "this is the nanothermate they actually found and tested and analyzed." Dr. Jones had several tells in his disinformation work, but only his dust samples had nanothermite. Nobody else measured it. [This is the second time I've mentioned this to you and you've ignored it.] What they found in the dust was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres.
Be that as it may, the argument I'm making does not necessarily exclude NT as being involved. NT gets excluded as being the primary mechanism of destruction.
Mr. Froze wrote: "what alleged 4th gen Nuclear explosion are you comparing to? Because l can’t find any 4th gen nukes to draw analysts from because last time I checked they don’t exist!"
Very poorly played. Dr. Andre Gsponer's work proves they exist, because otherwise he probably would not have been published and gone through correcting revisions. Who do you have that discredits his peer-reviewed work? Nobody. Not even and especially Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Neils Harrit, etc.
Mr. Froze wrote: "You want me to save this link so I can have proof of debunking you once? If I saved every link I debunked somebody’s nuclear theories on 9/11 I’d run out of cloud space!! Lol"
I have legacy. You don't. Your boast of all your debunkery is just another set of lies. And your efforts were not worthy of preservation. How can I be so bold? Because writing for posterity and saving your work would have given you regularly and repeatedly a boost each time said-work was re-purpose on the -- by your count -- the 1000 of instances of you putting down "nukes." Not even the tiniest bit of a writer's ego; no blog to collect your worthy efforts; no legacy except in the databases of Facebook.
You wasted 10 years of your life on 9/11 topics and have squat to show for it. Can't cough up a link; can't cough up witty passages of debunkery.
Agents and trolls benefit from not having a legacy, that way they don't get tripped up down the road with earlier discussions coming to light later, proving lies and insincerity.
// Part 3/3
2020-07-22
x148 Josh Froze : may become a reality in a decade or two
2020-07-18
Yeah you have a legacy alright, we can add your name to the long list of disinformation trolls! Great legacy there!
So even your precious author on 4th gen nukes says 4th gen nukes “may become a reality in a decade or two” meaning they don’t even exist yet and all his writings are hypothetical, there is not one single 4th generation nuke out there that you can compare to yet you know all there is to know about 4th gen nukes! Give me a break!!
4. Evidence of heat! Of course there is evidence of heat, pools of molten steel, longest burning structural fire in history, “the meteor” horse-shoe beam, all more evidence of nanothermate!
So basically you have evidence of explosions? Vehicle damage? Debris pile evidence? Such as steel beams being hurled laterally 600 feet at 70 mph? Explosive force! Again, you need to understand and learn what the tnt equivalents of explosives are, I’ll leave a wiki link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
You see all chemical explosives are in 1-2 R.E. range and nukes are in the thousands!!!!
Radiation delayed for a couple days?? Haha that’s funny, you obviously have no idea how radiation works, radiation travels at the speed of light, there is no “delays”!!! Jesus Christ! And you are a legacy?? Lol
Do you know what radiation biological damage is? Have you ever seen picture of anyone with radiation burns? If there was radiation from a nuke we would have thousands of people with there body parts melting off!! It’s not pretty! And very painful!!
Here:
Richard Borri was right there before, during and after the collapse of the North Tower and didn't measure ANY radiation above that of background radiation, so even if there was radiation fallout with a half life of "minutes" it would have shown up on Borri's portable liquid scintillation counter:
[Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.
--------
Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.
The far more serious threat, of course, was the chance that one of the hijackers might have carried a suitcase of radioactive materials or a dirty bomb, a conventional bomb spiked with radioactive material. Such a bomb has been compared to TNT, strapped to a container of plutonium or plutonium-contaminated waste. This kind of a device would not produce a nuclear explosion, but it could spread deadly radioactive matter across a swath of city.
According to Borri, the fear with a dirty bomb is that hundreds, maybe thousands, could die from radiation poisoning and cancer, and the area could be poisoned for years. (Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, says Borri.)
That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.
-----
Although Borri didn’t turn up any problematic radioactive readings by the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued to sample. [Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]
National Environmental Health Association:
https://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-Tests.html
x150 Josh Froze : Copy and paste from my notes
2020-07-18
Copy and paste from my notes:
Oh Maxwell Bridges
you have no idea how much notes I have on 9/11!!
"Radiation-only cancers" claim:
Gordan makes this claim in another Veterans Today article, claiming to know his hard science!
So I wanted to find out what these alleged sicknesses or cancers are that:
"could only be caused by high level exposure to radiation."
Which is simply not true.
Most of the cancers are lung cancers, which we can assume is from breathing in the dust...
"About a month ago, I learned, from the New York Times, that one firefighter had died of radiation cancer, multiple myeloma." -Gordan Duff
First of all, the New York Times does not claim multiple myeloma is a radiation cancer and second, multiple myeloma is not a cancer that "could only be caused by radiation." -Gordan Duff
What causes Multiple Myeloma:
[Although the exact cause isn't known, doctors do know that multiple myeloma begins with one abnormal plasma cell in your bone marrow — the soft, blood-producing tissue that fills in the center of most of your bones. This abnormal cell then starts to multiply.
Investigating cause:
...Though they haven't yet discovered the cause of these changes, they have found that almost all people with multiple myeloma have genetic abnormalities in their plasma cells that probably contributed to the cancer.
The genetic abnormalities associated with multiple myeloma include:
-A defect related to chromosome 14 in which a piece of one chromosome moves to a different chromosome (translocation)
-Extra copies of certain chromosomes (hyperdiploidy)
-An abnormality in which part or all of chromosome 13 is missing]
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-myeloma/basics/causes/con-20026607
Leukemia is the other cancer that Gordan Duff leads to believe can only be caused by radiation:
"So often I hear, “How could a nuclear weapon be exploded in New York City. Wouldn’t people die of leukemia and radiation exposure?”
Wouldn’t they, though." -Veterans Today
Leukemia:
[Leukemia, like other cancers, results from mutations in the DNA.
These mutations may occur spontaneously or as a result of exposure to radiation or carcinogenic substances.
Common examples of non-radioactive carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke.] -Wiki
"Asbestos" could also have surely caused the cancers and lung sicknesses combined with all the other mix of harmful dust...
I'm familiar with what radiation is and the different types, I used to work as an x-Ray radiographer on the pipeline, (gamma ray to be specific) and what biological damage it can do...
I don't see anybody "radiated" or anything on 9/11... Do you have any more examples of victims of "radiation cancer" on 9/11?
Here is a little educational course on the biological effects of radiation, since it is apparent that Gordan Duff does not have a clue about what radiation is, or it's damaging biological effects!
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/biological/biological.htm
-------
Furthermore:
Any use of nuclear devices would have produced vast amounts radioactive fallout detectable even at great distances from Lower Manhattan. No such contamination has been found. Nonetheless, advocates of the nuclear weapons theory claim that scientific reports examining the chemical composition of World Trade Center remains and dust support their theory. Two such claims concern the detection of tritium and uranium.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html
The passage indicates that the radioactivity of the WTC samples was only slightly above background levels, which is not surprising, given that small quantities of radionuclides are used in applications likely present in the Towers.
-------
If Gordan Duff wants to speak out about radiation, he should write about the war crimes and crimes against humanity of depleted uranium bombs dropped in Iraq that has caused (and still causing) all the birth defects there!
Multiple myeloma - Symptoms and causes
MAYOCLINIC.ORG
x152 Josh Froze : Long list of links for Molten Steel
2020-07-18
Josh Froze
***Molten Steel***
"Fires burned and molten metal flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath my feet." -Sarah Atlas
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586166747239&id=1646648597&st=14https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586166747239&id=1646648597&st=14
"You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel! MOLTEN STEEL, running down the channel rails!
Like you're in a foundry! Like LAVA!"
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586229228801&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"Underground, it was still so hot that MOLTEN METAL dripped down the sides of the wall..."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586229588810&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"streams of MOLTEN METAL... flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586230308828&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586230868842&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"Feeling the heat, seeing the MOLTEN STEEL, the layers upon layers of ash, like LAVA, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens" (like a volcano!!!)
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586231468857&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow-molten metal dripping from a beam"
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586247989270&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"One firman told us that there was still MOLTEN STEEL at the heart of the towers' remains."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586248989295&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"Your boots would melt in certain areas, that's how hot it was! the steel was coming out red in certain areas, for the first couple weeks at least!"
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2608409983306&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"Steel toed boots is one of the biggest things... Out on the rubble it's still I believe 1100 degrees. The guys boots would just melt within a few hours, and they are burning their feet."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4148602847165&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
Here's an equipment operator saying:
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug out!"
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586249749314&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
Here's a pic of molten steel being dug out:
https://www.facebook.com/joshua.froze/media_set?set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=2586113585910&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater
"It's unbelievable, and this is 6 weeks later, and as we get closer to the center of this it get's hotter and hotter! It's probably 1500 degrees!"
"We've had some small windows into what we saw was the floor zone point and it looked like an oven, ya know, it was just roaring inside, it was a bright bright reddish orange color"
"See that stuff he's pulling out? We're going to hold off on the water. See that stuff he's pulling out? It's RED HOT! If we hit it there will be too much steam he won't be able to see what he's doing!" -Chief
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4148647408279&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"One of the more unusual artifacts to emerge from the rubble is this rock like object that has become to be known as the 'meteorite' "
"This is fused element of steel, MOLTEN STEEL, and concrete, and all of these things, all fused by the heat into one single element."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200573900863777&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
8 Ton, 6 inch I beam bent like a horse shoe with hardly any cracks, "it takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200573879703248&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43
"And there was like a little river of steel flowing."
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618686342761&id=1646648597&st=14
"Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F, to more than 2,800 degrees F"
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618686582767&id=1646648597&st=14
"Vitcher's crew picked up 40 to 60 foot-long pieces of steel impaled in the pile, where the bottom 20 feet would be glowing red hot"
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618687422788&id=1646648597&st=14
Guns encased in concrete:
"Fire temperatures was so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."
Side note:
[The concrete does not have point melting. When the temperature is high (more than 1000°C) the concrete one crumbles like the sugar. Their components have different behavior. Stone and sand melts to 2600°C, the steel melt to 2500°. The same happens to the components of the cement.]
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202220243621317&id=1646648597&st=14
"Underground fires... smoulder for months. Fed by molten steel, and buried carpeting, office furniture..." -PBS Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdIuz7CBUSI
-------
"When we first got there it was actually like working inside of a volcano - it was extremely hot. We were digging by hand. There was this orange-yellowish smoke coming out. Our skin was turning maroon. We were hoping to find someone alive but it was just bodies. I knew my brother Gary had a skin graft on his heel. I removed firefighters' socks and boots trying to find him. It was horrible from day one to the very end - it was a nightmare." -Former FDNY Firefighter Ralph Geidel
http://www.sohoblues.com/9-11-Still-Killing.html
Sept 16, 2001 thermal images reveal 1400°F temperatures at the surface of the WTC 1,2 & 7 debris piles - yet there were no fires at the surface after the collapses. These surface temperatures indicate much higher temperatures below the surface.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202256938738672&id=1646648597&st=14
The microspheres must have been formed at extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center’s destruction – temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron (~2,700° F). The spheres must have been molten when they were created in order to take their spherical shape.]
https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=4164021392619&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater
Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse.
https://www.facebook.com/joshua.froze/photos#!/photo.php?fbid=2586796842991&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater
9/11 longest burning structural fire in history!
4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ....
The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
"firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
And yet the fired continued to burn for months, it wasn't until December 19, 2001 when the NYC fire marshall declared the fires extinguished.
x154 Josh Froze : Ya know man this is it, this stuff blows up!
2020-07-18
***Nanothermate found in WTC’s***
The red/grey chips, found in the dust of the Twin Towers were examined by Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, first through a Scanning Electron Microscope to determine the elements. A combination of aluminum and iron oxide were found which are the components of thermite.
[Thermite (or thermate) is a mixture of finely powdered aluminum and iron oxide that produces a very high temperature on combustion, used in welding and for incendiary bombs etc.]
At higher magnification with the electron microscope, (after breaking some chips to get a clean view/fresh surface from the dust on it) in all 4 samples they found carbon, silicon, oxygen, iron, and aluminum.
Jones was surprised to see carbon and silicon but upon reviewing the literature of experimenters working with super thermite trying to "beef it up" making it more explosive, tailoring it to different weapons applications, they would have silicon in there and an organic material (which means the carbon) to give it the properties they wanted.
They add the carbon because that gives you a gas production which gives the explosive force for instance.
So then they ran one of these chips through a very sensitive instrument called a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, and what it does is heat the temperature slowly, and the material will react if it's going to.
And if it reacts and produces heat then you'll get a spike in your calorimeter. (Shown on a screen: see attached pics)
[A calorimeter is an object used for calorimetry, or the process of measuring the heat of chemical reactions or physical changes as well as heat capacity.
If it reacts quickly, it will be a narrow spike. If it burns, say over a long period of time, you'll see a big broad spike.]
It also measures total amount of energy released and just a lot of information.
What they found, sure enough, is the chips went off right around 430 centigrade, but more importantly is the "peak" was very high, which means a lot of energy released, and "narrow" which in Dr. Ferrer's terms, it blew up!
He said "Ya know man this is it, this stuff blows up!"
It behaves just like nano thermite, it has the ingredients of nano thermite, and in a thermite reaction it should produce molten iron. So they looked and sure enough there were these iron spheres (tons of droplets of molten iron) that were left as a product!
Many other independent researchers have also found the same nano thermite in their research as well. Nano thermite burns so hot that it can cut through steel beams like a knife through butter. This can explain the pools of molten steel found in the rubble and the "cut" core columns of the Twin Towers!
It's like the "finger print" the criminals left behind! And further supports the already overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that the Twin Towers (and Building 7) we're all brought down by Controlled Demolition!
"The three buildings were demolished.
This has been crystal clear.
Our research is just the last nail in the coffin!" -Niels Harrit
x156 Maxwell C. Bridges : if you believe that NT is the only way to generate tiny iron spheres in the dust, you are an agent or an idiot
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
all of your Tetrus block links about **molten steel** links and whatnot can be applied to the FGNW stack and fit with fewer gaps than the NT stack. In fact, when we consider the number of devices and the probability that expelled highly energetic neutrons from some devices might cause other devices to fail and fizzle (e.g., not meet their full yield in the manner desired), then nuclear fizzling remnants under the pile more easily explains the evidence.
Read Section 7. Continually Regenerated Fine Particles (from the "9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case".)
Gee, I've repeatedly asked you to explain (or find the explanation) how NT would account for arches / sags, horseshoes, and whatnot [images highlighted in Dr. Wood's book.] YOU BEEN AVOIDING THIS ASSIGNMENT and is critical for your "NT theory" to be valid.
For that matter, your Tetrus block links to health effects also apply to the FGNW stack with fewer gaps. Read Section 10. First Responder Ailments (from the "9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case".)
As for the NT in the dust samples of ONLY Dr. Jones, let that be a clue. Did the RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, or the United States Geological Survey reports find NT? No. All they found were significant percentages of tiny iron spheres that the energy of FGNW easily explains.
Or stated another way, you are an agent or an idiot if you believe that NT is the only way to generate tiny iron spheres in the dust.
I've posted this before, and you ignored it. But this earlier article of mine slaughters the NT sacred cow.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
How does NT explain tritium, and the completely bogus disinformation song-and-dance on tritium that Dr. Steven Jones was required, as the 9/11 nuclear disinfo agent, to accept unquestioned and unchallenged?
In your frenzy to copy-and-paste you didn't realize that you were making the case for fourth generation nuclear devices. Thank you.
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x158 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Wayne Coste got totally PWNed by me
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
not too long ago, I had FGNW discussions with Mr. Wayne Coste, and he got totally PWNed by me on this subject but he really did it to himself.
Chapter 11: FGNW Discussions with Wayne Coste
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
//
FGNW Discussions
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x160 Wayne Coste : got bored arguing with a rock
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
Sorry Maxwell -- I got bored arguing with a rock.
x162 Maxwell C. Bridges : your NT premise got shot out from underneath you
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
no, you were scared shitless because your NT premise (much like your Pentagon plane premise) got shot out from underneath you, because you relied on SHITTY work, such as AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/FAQ #15, which is a clever piece of blatant disinformation.
How so? It frames the discussion around "nuclear blast" as a straw-man, and then lamely tries to knock that down as implying this "nuclear blast" would be true for all nuclear devices. It does zero research or even acknowledgement of FGNW, frames the nukes as single devices (under ground) per tower and too large, etc.
Here's a great copy and paste snippet from our discussion. Notable is that you weaseled out of this simple assignment, REQUIRED to validate whether NT should even still be in the discussion.
Mr. Josh Froze, you should make note of this and jump ahead with the assignment, that without a doubt will be coming at you very soon (if you don't demonstrate your weasel colors.)
+++ NIST VIDEO CHALLENGE FOR NT +++
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
//
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
YOUTUBE.COM
x164 Josh Froze : you never had a 4th gen nuke
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
how can you explain what a 4th gen nuke would do , would do this to the tower or do that to the tower, when you never had a 4th gen nuke to learn from experiment, there’s never been a 4th gen nuke!! All you’re doing is speculating, in other words you’re just making up shit!
x166 Maxwell C. Bridges : what configuration of NT would account for this?
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
And how are your debunking efforts going for Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, peer-reviewed and published (m.a.n.y. t.i.m.e.s) in reputable science journals? Surely if what you say is anything more that hypnotic assertion by someone who is losing badly this debate on multiple fronts, then you ought to be able to find rather quickly the debunking by scientists and military weapons experts, who like Dr. Gsponer have no 9/11 axe to grind and have had since the 1990's to tackle this! Have you looked at Dr. Gsponer's CV, seen how many times he's been published in three languages (two more than you speak)?!!
Get to work, Mr. Froze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
Meanwhile, on the disinfo NT front that you promote, the above video is just chock full of examples that neither you nor any of your PhD NT disinfo agents have ventured to explain "what configuration of NT would account for this?" Cutting a beam is one thing, and maybe the standing steel girder with the angle cut (and the heroic fireman posed in front of it in that classic 9/11 picture used by NT supporters) is an example of NT playing a role, and I'll not dispute it.
But what starts this video is a hollow box column of a wall assembly that seemingly got end-to-end so hot during the destruction, that the corner welds of the box column its entire length came apart and caused waves in the thick metal sides. Where was NT placed?
That is just one example of m.a.n.y that NT needs to explain. One of my favorites is not just a steel doobie (aka three columns of a wall assembly rolled up like a joint by the spandrels that connected them together), but a doobie done smoked already to a stub and a curiously "wilted" end! Keep your eye out for it.
//
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
YOUTUBE.COM
x168 Josh Froze : most definitely a sulfidation of the steel
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
you will agree it takes 1000’s of degrees to bend steel like that, as we know the rubbish pile was “red hot” “bottom 20 feet would be glowing red hot” “See that stuff he's pulling out? It's RED HOT!“ all the "The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug out!" all the “molten steel” etc etc this “red hot” can explain the twisted and bent steel beams.
When you use thermate on steel it leaves a trace of sulfate. The sulfur reacts to the iron in the steel. And when FEMA slipped up and gave 3 pieces of steel for an institute of technology to study they published a paper showing the sulfidation of steel, you know the famous thin steel with holes like Swiss cheese? Well that’s evidence of nanothermate reaction!
So you can look at pics all you want where these 3 pieces where actually tested and studied and there was most definitely a sulfidation of the steel! And combined with the tremendous heat that nanothermate creates more than explains where the “red hot heat” came from!
https://youtu.be/IMTCds1kuyM
Certainly this is a better scientific explanation of the evidence shown, rather than claiming it was from a “4th generation nuke” one of which your author admits isn’t even a reality for another decade or two! You’re hopeless!!
Niels Harrit - 9/11 Anniversary Conference - Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2019
YOUTUBE.COM
x170 Maxwell C. Bridges : the quantity of UNSPENT NT required to maintain hot-spots for months?
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
Your first paragraph could go either way, NT or FGNW. In reality, only FGNW and possibly some fizzled devices explains it. Why?
Once NT has completed its chemical reaction, it cools. What was the duration of the hot-spots? Did Dr. Harrit calculate the quantity of UNSPENT NT required to maintain them for months? No, he did not, and let that be a disinformation tell.
Section 6. Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires (from "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW")
Meanwhile, you continue to evade the important questions. That NIST video is 2 hours long. Clearly you haven't watched it (or the 2 hours of Part 1) to see all of the wonder anomalous evidence it contains that NT -- to date and including all of your glorious NT PhD's -- cannot explain and doesn't attempt to explain. Let that be another one of those NT disinformation tells.
I've done what you wanted, written things in my own words, provided evidence to support my contention, offered up peer-reviewed experts... AND you didn't look at it or comment. Like I suspected: the ole disinformation tactic of assigning busy work.
On the other hand, I gave you assignments right from the evidence FGNW is using to have a SWAG done with NT to have it explain it. Zilch is what you come up with, except distraction.
Here's another video with examples of camera scintillation as a result of radiation (recorded) leaching off of the pile. (How is it that super-duper NT leaches radiation?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4HOCf7WK3g&feature=youtu.be&t=291
//
Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10
YOUTUBE.COM
x172 Josh Froze : "well I have no idea how this came to be so it must be a nuke!"
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
your inability to explain a phenomenon does not provide proof it must be a nuke! You can’t look at steel beams and go “well I have no idea how this came to be so it must be a nuke!” Your failure to understand the result of steel beams being subjected to incendiaries and explosives and structural damage is just that, your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
How long was the thermate reacting? The fact is there was indeed plentiful evidence of nanothermate and so put that in your equation and figure it out! The fact is, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were pre-rigged and brought down in controlled demolitions and it sure as hell wasn’t Osama Bin Laden!
Josh Froze
Sorry your theoretical 4th generation nukes didn’t work out for ya!
x174 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Well, I have no idea how this came to be so it must be NT (because some PhD's said so."
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
Your inability to explain a phenonmenon -- like the evidence in two 2-hour NIST videos -- clearly does not provide proof it must be NT! "Well, I have no idea how this came to be so it must be NT (because some PhD's said so." Your failure to understand the result of steel beams being subjected to targeted highly energetic neutrons is just that, your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
Here is a quote from me from one of my works.
>+++ begin
NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. Therefore Dr. Steven Jones, who allegedly found energetic particles of NT in his dust samples, suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX.
Unfortunately on paper, RDX or similar explosives exasperate getting NT to explain the second anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks.
Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.
Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume "salting" of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT. Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers. In other words, add this to the gross estimates already provided by Dr. Harrit.
+++ end
Yep, now I get to frag your ass with multiple proven incidents of you not reading and of you clearly not watching the two 2-hour NIST videos to come with an NT explanation.
You are not sincere. You are playing games. Disinfo agent.
//
x176 Josh Froze : No one ever claimed only nanothermate
2020-07-18
Josh Froze
No one ever claimed only nanothermate was used! The sulfidation of the steel tested does however support the evidence of nt used! This along with whatever explosives they used (being in the 1-2 R.E. range) DOES explain the pulverisation and dismemberment and the destruction of the Twin Towers!
Josh Froze
Not 1000 R.E. range as your 4th generation nuke claims to be by your author at minimum!
Josh Froze
You haven’t had enough debunking yet of your fantasy 4th gen nukes?
Oh “camera scintillating as a result of radiation”! Hahaha At least you’re good for a laugh!!
x178 Maxwell C. Bridges : the very inaction of purposely never exploring what else was used
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
You wrote: "No one ever claimed only nanothermate was used!" This must be where you enter full-on retard mode.
I'll give you that that is a true statement, but what is also true is that all of you NT-Kool-Aid drinkers "implied" over-and-over that "only nanothermite was used!" How so?
By the very inaction of purposely never exploring what else was used, and actively in that inaction discounting FGNW as potentially that extra something-something that truly does have the fewest gaps!
Further evidence of your full-on retard mode is that I copied-and-pasted a discussion about by why NT mixed with any more brisant explosive could not go the distance of a single hot-spot (there were many) burning for a month (some burned longer)... without obscenely massive overkill amounts that are both a logistics hurdle and incredible.
Your three-in-a-row spamming comment to push mine into the nether regions of "read more comments" is just another disinformation flag that you are less than sincere.
Your full-on retard mode is so strong, it won't even let you watch NIST videos and comment on how the recorded evidence might have been achieved using either NT or FGNW. How lame is that?
You are less than sincere.
Nevertheless, I thank you for this exchange which make another chapter (one day when I get around to it) on the theme "9/11 disinformation is alive and well and exhibited quite plainly by those lamely arguing against the possibility of 9/11 FGNW from that 'strong-hold' position of not reading what substantiates the case."
//
x180 Josh Froze : will continue to debunk your 4th generation nuke BS all over the curb!!
2020-07-18
Josh Froze
Are you going to cry now because you lost in the debate? Lol
Josh Froze
You don’t think I have seen the rubble from 9/11 before? I’ve watched more hours of NIST FOIA videos than most people watch sports!! Don’t just assume shit with me, you have no idea the amount of time and energy I’ve put into 9/11 and will continue to debunk your 4th generation nuke BS all over the curb!!
Josh Froze
Show me a 4th generation nuke! Oh wait, you can’t because there isn’t one invented yet! Go re-read your authors paper! Lol
x182 Maxwell C. Bridges : brag about the number of hours devoted to studying videos of the destruction, yet in all that time never wondered exactly how the NT was positioned to generate some anomalous artifacts
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
Allow me to point out some of the tells in no particular order that you are a disinformation agent.
Spamming, shoot-from-the-hip comments that easily with SHIFT-ENTER (or composing elsewhere and then pasting here) could / should have been combined into one.
Having no external legacy. You can create a blog for free, where you can publish your worthy efforts.
BTW Mr. Josh Froze, I forgot to give you kudos for an earlier effort on your part where you really did provide URLs. I encourage you to keep with your worthy text at least one URL on where you posted it.
The problems with ~your~ URLs were that most were directly into FB groups. You can't use those to substantiate your efforts to anyone (a) without access to Facebook OR (b) without membership in those groups. Further, we all know how censorship on Facebook at many levels (or just petty delete-comment actions by the owner of a top-level comment) can deep-six worthy efforts to everybody... except the FBI at our trials for deviant thought. [Solution: if you re-purpose your efforts to your blog, it is public and under your control.]
Your demeanor proves again and again that you did not review (a) the articles linked or (b) the videos linked, yet still you soldier on trying to debunk them. And the duck-and-weave weaseling happens repeatedly, and unusual amounts of shaming must be deployed before on the surface it appears you've dabbled at least your toe into the content. It is as if you are ordered to not go there, not respond to content you find there, not to engage specifics, not to be genuine, sincere, and truthful in what it represents.
+++
So you brag about the number of hours you have already devoted to studying videos of the destruction, yet in all that time have never wondered exactly how the NT was positioned to generate some anomalous artifacts! And when you were purposely called out to do just such a thought-experiments afresh, what do you do? Nothing meaningful.
Everything but. You spam the forum.
You try to pawn your weaknesses onto me, like the fact that you are losing this discussion from TWO different directions.
(1) You can't defend NT where it counts, in the specific NIST videos linked.
(2) You can't discredit FGNW.
Worse, you know that the shoddy work of your 9/11 Truth heroes (e.g., poor nuclear research, accepting disinformation unchallenged, not finding root causes if NT didn't do it all, parking understanding in a dead-end alley...) implicates them and further makes a mess of things (giving you "cognitive dissonance" headaches, eh?)
You want me to show you a FGNW. How about you show me a NT-based explosive that will burn for months?
Who's the cry-baby loser?
You've been duped by NT and your cognitive dissonance on the matter won't let you admit it.
//
x184 Josh Froze : Show me proof of a 4th generation nuke exists
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
what part of 4th generation nukes don’t exist don’t you understand? Show me proof of a 4th generation nuke exists and a paper by a guy who says they might be a reality in 10-20 years doesn’t count!
Second, show the nuke with the TNT equivalent of the 1-2 R.E. range of explosives that we see on 9/11 and leaves no radiation!
There is plenty proof NT was used, and you’d have to be blind not to see the explosive ejections and hurling steel beams!
I’m a disinformation agent??? Geez I wish they would buy me a lap top to do all this disinfo work on! What did I say that was disinfo? Nothing.
You want to explain how exactly it was placed? Who knows that? Only the people that did it! What we do know is they had access through the elevator shafts and they just happened to have a major elevator upgrade prior to 9/11 by Ace Elevator and whoever planted them would most likely have to run security, such as Kroll Inc:
[After the 1993 WTC bombing, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey gave control of security at the WTC to Kroll Inc. in a $2.5 million upgrade contract. The owners of Kroll at the time were Jules Kroll and his son Jeremy. The managing director of Kroll at the time was Jerome M. Hauer, who ran Mayor Rudy Guiliani's office of emergency management (OEM) from 1996 to 2000. He is the key individual that pushed for this office to be placed in Silverstein's WTC Building 7.]
And how Larry Silverstein didn’t make it to work that day etc
These are the questions and answers you should be looking for, not promoting hypothetical nukes disinformation but showing people how it was an inside job!!
x186 Maxwell C. Bridges : What part of Dr. Andre Gsponer's work do nuclear scientists and weapons experts have issues with?
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
What part of Dr. Andre Gsponer's lengthy career in nuclear realms with oodles of publications in three different languages, a late 1990's book on FGNW, and a handy 2005 paper are you trying to discredit, and what nuclear scientists and weapons experts can you reference who have issues with his work?
Whereas Dr. Gsponer was aiming for the future and pure fusion FGNW devices, that doesn't mean that the late-third generation nuclear devices couldn't / didn't do the trick. In fact, the USGS dust analysis proves fission, while the tritium song-and-dance proves fusion, while the dustification proves a massive energy sink and overkill, while a fission-triggered-fusion device configured to target its release of neutrons is indeed late-third generation nuclear weapon. (The recorded squibs? They weren't, otherwise they would have been more of them in a symmetric fashion. What they were was the conventional explosive ignition to the fission trigger, as described in many places.)
You play games: "Second, show the nuke with the TNT equivalent of the 1-2 R.E. range of explosives that we see on 9/11 and leaves no radiation!"
You can't prove there was "no radiation." In fact, I have proven there ~was~ radiation, with the newest piece of evidence being NIST recordings of the radiation leaching off of the pile! (Clever how you ignore the very reports that did measure radiation in shoddy fashions and were accepted at face value unquestioned and unchallenged.)
You play games with "the nuke" when I keep saying that each detonation level probably had multiple FGNW devices.
Truthfully, I don't know what "1-2 R.E. range of explosives" means. Is that big or small? What I do know is that when 80% of the yield is in targeted highly energetic neutrons, the effects will be different (and quiet compared to chemical based explosives.)
You wrote: "There is plenty proof NT was used, and you’d have to be blind not to see the explosive ejections and hurling steel beams!"
Maybe I'll bite on the notion of "plenty of proof NT was used," you are the disinfo agent constantly weaseling out of the fact that even your own NT experts (a) admit that NT didn't act alone and (b) refuse to explore / research what did! Hello?!! Anybody home! Could you be any more disengenous?!!
The remaining 20% of the FGNW yield already at subkiloton levels went into the expected blast wave, heat wave, and EMP -- and we have evidence of all these, too. Sufficient not only to hurling steel beams, but also to softening spandrals on wall assemblies into turning them into steel doobies (that nobody can explain how NT might accomplish. Clever how you ignore this and other blatant pieces of evidence of nuclear involvement.)
You wrote: "You want to explain how exactly it was placed? Who knows that? Only the people that did it! What we do know is they had access through the elevator shafts and they just happened to have a major elevator upgrade prior to 9/11 by Ace Elevator and whoever planted them would most likely have to run security, such as Kroll Inc:"
You are such an idiot weasel. I've referenced repeatedly a particular piece of evidence called a steel doobie: the three hollow box columns wrapped up together by their spandrels. There were at least three instances of this. Where was the "hot burning NT" placed in relation to this wall assembly that could soften the three wide spandrels to allow this rolling of a joint? A SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTION! You, and the disinformation that you support, skirt the issue. They don't address it, because they can't.
Let's go with your elevator proposal. Works great for FGNW! FGNW mounted around the inner core can still explain steel doobies. But NT in the elevator shafts can't!
Worse, both towers had remnants of that inner core still standing while the rest of the building seemed to fall away (although "the spire" of WTC-2 is most pronounced). Targeted FGNW explains this; NT can't.
If I were to use NT on the wall assemblies, I would place it on the connecting bolts to other wall assemblies, built-in failure points. No need for NT anywhere else on the walls, and intact wall assemblies are easier to dispose of.
It is not "hypothetical nukes," idiot.
And if that is your earnest belief, then you need to take it up with both Cornell University and Dr. Andre Gsponer. And because debunking this is so near and dear to your heart, make sure you recruit Dr. Steven Jones and others to help you make the debunking case. (And if they don't help you or give you clearly bad help, let that be a sign.)
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x188 Josh Froze : your nuke theory all to fk’n rat sh*t
2020-07-18
For the last time:
1) 1 ton tnt range is way too massive for anything we see on 9/11.
2) No gamma radiation or “nuclear radiation” measured on a Geiger counter before, during or after the collapse.
There goes your nuke theory all to fk’n rat sh*t! So go get a brain!!!
x190 Maxwell C. Bridges : no concept of nuclear yield and its forms taken
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
for the last time:
1) You are the one promoting the notion of 1 ton TNT and have no concept of what nuclear yield means and the forms it takes. Thus, your strawman gets torched by highly energetic neutrons before you can even prop it up.
2) What are the weaknesses of the reports that left the false notion of "no nuclear radiation"? They themselves don't say "no nuclear radiation." Instead, they used shoddy sampling techniques and who knows what other data omission or juking they employed. Can you say "tritium"? That alone squashes your misconceptions. [The trend line in all other reports and government agency actions by NIST, the EPA, the 9/11 Commission is that no report can be trusted at face value. The data points from the radiation reports fit into the same trend line and has been proven as such in my work.
There goes your "'no nuke' theory all to fk’n rat sh*t!"
I'd tell you to "get a brain!!!" as well, but that is not your problem. Lack of both honesty and integrity are your problem.
If you had either, you'd be able to say, "this asshole does make good points that those who promote NT do not address all of the evidence, accepted shoddy reports at face value unquestioned and unchallenged as allegedly the final word on anomalous radiation, did monumentally shitty research into nuclear devices."
//
x192 Maxwell C. Bridges : real-time interference as I typed
2020-07-18
BTW, it was rather amazing how I was messed with in FB as I was typing that last entry. Kept removing the latter part of the sentence I was writing, moving the cursor to other points in my comment. Happened over and over.
I don't blame you, Mr. Josh Froze, but let that be another sign.
//
2020-07-23
x194 Josh Froze : like a total retard
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
you sound like a total retard when you talk about nukes and radiation, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about and who do you think you are bullsh*ting with this bs? Certainly not me!
x196 Maxwell C. Bridges : The "retard" outflanked you
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
Thank you for the complements! So witty! And so based in fact, because you read my premise and its substantiating references, and through good old-fashioned gumshoe detective work in the library of your institution of higher education were able to research nukes and radiation to prove me both wrong and retarded. Bravo!
To me, you sound like a total disinformation agent.
Those pesky bastards have their orders, and rule #1 is not to confront a deviant premise on its turf or terms. Meaning, if an agent were to read a section of my premise and have issues with it, they aren't allowed to drag it back to discuss it even to debunk it, because the effort gives too much validity to the premise and to things they didn't drag back.
Another disinfo tell were the numbers of busywork assignments given to me that you then promptly ignored.
Didn't do your integrity any good in your defense of NT that you were "incapable of / prevented from" reviewing NIST videos and rationally speculating how NT could accomplish it.
But as "retarded" as I am, I still managed to outflank you. Here's a manuever that still makes me chuckle. In March of 2016, you attempted the same carousel spin. I took the exchange seriously, saved my work (and what I was responding to), and re-purposed it on my blog. That effort from four years ago wasn't wasted, because here you are in 2020 trying to pull the same lame-ass shit [your unchanging agenda].
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/attempts-at-rational-911-discussion.html
You ran away then, unfriended me, pushed me out of the group. Control of the information is a military objective.
If you weren't a disinformation agent and were instead a true, honest champion of the Truth, then you would have been open-minded to the many different areas where NT and its promotion did not measure up. Further, you would have been open to the many pieces of evidence that FGNW can explain and that nobody from the NT camp even attempts to explain.
Be that as it may, rest assured that this exchange so far is saved off-line and will be ready for re-purposing whenever the hell I get around to it. It will become a second major data point that validates the disinfo trend line that represents you. Bravo, old chap! Bonus points that your shitty efforts in defending NT didn't!
//
x198 Josh Froze : the whole idea of a nuclear explosion
2020-07-18
Maxwell Bridges
the whole idea of a nuclear explosion no matter how you do it is to split the atoms, consequently making them unstable, consequently making them radioactive, consequently shooting out radioactive gamma rays in all directions at the speed of light, consequently being measured instantly on Geiger counter!
Even if your 4th gen nukes were a reality, there would be instant radiation detection.
x200 Maxwell C. Bridges : closed-mind, willful ignorance, inability to study = fail the integrity challenge
2020-07-18
Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
You demonstrate yet another instance of (a) not having read Dr. Gsponer or my work, (b) being the proud uneducated retard on nuclear themes you don't even try to understand, and (c) arguing through your ass.
Splitting atoms only applies to fission, not fusion. My FGNW devices are expected to have a conventional explosive charge (the squibs in the videos) to kick-start the fission stage whose sole purpose is to generate the heat for fusion. Neither the explosive kick-starter nor the very small fission stage are designed for destruction, just like fission in a nuclear reactor isn't for destruction. Its standard alpha, gamma radiation was controlled and was not an overriding feature of that phase, and lo and behold, its radiation ~was~ measured but at reduced levels that their reports via omission and juking reduced further.
The fusion stage was where all of the destructive energy came from, and was 80% in the form of targeted highly energetic neutrons based on the principles of neutron bombs. Your Geiger counter won't measure neutron radiation. Why hasn't the public been hearing about these dastardly neutron bombs since the 1980's? Because it is fundamental to all of the variants of FGNW that Dr. Gsponer discusses. Tritium, in turn, is fusion's building block and a tell-tail sign. Not only was in fact tritium measured, it had a whole circus relating to the samples, misrepresenting the levels, attributing them to aircraft exit signs, and then getting sold by Dr. Jones to the science challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement (to which you belong.)
Owing to the design factors above ~and~ to strict control of the WTC where personal cameras and Geiger counters were not permitted, your assumption about "instant radiation detection" is flawed, and is a completely different facet compared to "honestly and faithfully measuring for radiation ~and~ reporting on it," whereby the trendline of all other reports gives us no confidence as being 100% valid. You should review the sections on camera scintillation again, because the digital camera technology in particular can and did pick up radiation, which is why the PTB had a hard clampdown on the area against personal cameras and were weapons-drawn anal about tracking all debris leaving the site.
I've dinged you many, many times about you being a disinformation agent. I'm not solidly in this camp, but your closed-mind, willful ignorance, inability to study is an integrity challenge that only disinfo agents regularly and repeatedly fail. To prove me wrong on you being integrity-challenged and hence a disinfo agent, all you have to do is honestly and faithfully attempt the meager assignments I've given you. You still might disagree, but at least you'll do it from a position of informed knowledge instead of through your ass.
//
Part 5: FGNW Discussiosn with Bruce MacLeod, Jerome Grogan, Olof Won Howler, Rob Meek, Wayne Coste
x202 Bruce MacLeod : got thermite?
2020-07-31
2020-07-31
Bruce MacLeod
Meme: "got thermite?" "NIST did not test for the residue of these computs in the steel." - NIST
Picture of NIST engineer, John Gross, looking at steel beams with thin patches and holes.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Thermite. It does a controlled-demolition-disguised-as-a-building-collapse good. https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions
x204 Maxwell C. Bridges : NIST knew NT wasn't involved
2020-07-31
The reason NIST did not test for the residuals of nano-thermite is that they knew it wasn't involved (as the primary mechanism of destruction) and really truly wasn't everywhere. Only Dr. Steven Jones' samples allegedly had NT; none from the USGS, Paul Lioy et al, or the RJ Lee Group.
But what all these samplers did have was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. (The deceit is in ~assuming~ this was the result of the NT chemical reaction, while conveniently overlooking its inability to go the distance in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and many pieces of physical evidence, like the arcs, sags, and steel-doobies.)
But what the USGS survey of the dust does have is Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities.
But what the delayed NIST videos of the destruction do have is recorded evidence on "modern" digital cameras of radiation leaching off of the piles. (Camera scintillation.)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
I did my homework and made my findings available.
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x206 Maxwell C. Bridges : Test the Samples (for NT's little helper)
2020-07-31
Here's something special for you, Mr. Bruce MacLeod
owing to your "haha" emoticon FB rating. It is an earlier version of the same FGNW premise but with several sections that slaughter that sacred 9/11 cow known as NT.
I call your attention to section 4. Test the Samples.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Here's a quote from Scott Creighton 2010-05-26.
Steven Jones is a physicist who has done work for the Idaho National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy (Division of Advanced Energy Projects), and U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute. Not to mention the fact that Steven Jones was a professor at BYU.
In several email attempts to get Jones to agree to run tests for residues of high explosives (PETN, RDX, TNT) in the dust in his possession, this highly decorated and experienced educator attempted to tell me there was no way to test for such residues and then he tried to tell me he didn't know how to test for the residues and would not have access to the equipment to do so.
For Steven Jones to make the claim that NIST is "getting away with" not testing for explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard. Jones and Harrit and Roberts all make the claim in their "peer-reviewed paper" that they did NOT test for these finger prints of high explosives and that someone else should.
...
We can all understand why NIST doesn't run the tests; because they are a branch of the Department of Commerce and they essentially worked for the people who carried out 911. But Jones. Harrit, and Roberts are SUPPOSED to be a different story. They are SUPPOSED to be an unofficial investigation into the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Why would Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et al deliberately chose to not run these tests? And who exactly is "getting away" with not running them? NIST is condemned for it, Jones is given a pass.
Convince me that NT could do the job, or let me convince you that NT could not and that the more logical cause were FGNW.
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x208 Bruce MacLeod : we have already won
2020-07-31
Meme has Richard Gage and Neils Harrit. "Dr. Nils Harrit in terms of exposing what happened on 9/11, we have already won."
Image may contain: 2 people, people standing, text that says 'komst Arrivals Departures DR. NIELS HARRIT: IN TERMS OF EXPOSING WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11, WE HAVE ALREADY WON WTC7EVALUATION.or 911FREEFALL.com AE911TRUTH.org'
x210 Bruce MacLeod : Molten metal pours out
2020-07-31
Nils Harrit: Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives comes into play."
Image may contain: 1 person, meme, text that says 'Scientists Finds Nano Explosive Material in WTC Dust. April 6, 2009. Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives NEWS come into play. B4:21 10:32'
x212 Maxwell C. Bridges : two memes do not equal my two researched efforts
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
your two memes do not equal my two researched efforts. I've read your two wimpy memes; you have not read my two weighty blog postings. For shame! Talk about arguing from a position of abject ignorance! Way to go!
P.S. Molten metal pouring out of the South Tower may or may not indicate NT, but even ~if~ it did, NT is not the primary mechanism of destruction. FGNW can also explain the same phenomenon, if you'll open your mind and let it.
//
x214 Bruce MacLeod : Nuclear Demolition Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
2020-07-31
https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/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
x216 Jerome Grogan : is any truth in the official narrative?
2020-07-31
Maxwell Bridges
U.s. govt should have tested for everything. anything less is totally unacceptable.
85 videos of Pentagon strike and they release essentially nothing. Think there is any truth in the official narrative?
x218 Maxwell C. Bridges : the US government should have tested for everything
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan,
You are correct, the US government should have tested for everything.
The ironic part is, the US government's lame sampling and testing was sufficient to expose nuclear fingerprints. The USGS's data tables show Uranium and its decay elements (fission) in correlated quantities; the tritium measuring shoddiness proves fusion. Fission-triggered fusion -- a variant of the neutron bomb -- is the basis for all late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices.
//
x220 Maxwell C. Bridges : managed to debunk it section-by-section
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
I am a step ahead of you. I have had discussions with the author of that piece (Mr. Wayne Coste) and managed to debunk it section-by-section.
I'll give you the synopsis: WTC destruction by nuclear blast did not happen. Their premise, and I agree.
And with that narrow scope, they attempt to deceitfully rule out ~all~ nuclear devices. Blast implies air pressure, a rapid movement of air. This is framing nukes old school, where the heat wave and blast wave were desirable destructive yields. (A nuclear blast as described by this would also be deafening loud.)
FGNW release 80% of their tactical nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons, which can deliver massive amounts of energy / heat directly into atomic structure of materials in an instance, resulting in vastly different destructive outcomes... than "a nuclear blast wave."
Only 20% of the tactical yield would have been heat wave, blast wave, and EMP, but there is evidence of each.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
//
FGNW Discussions
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x222 Maxwell C. Bridges : conventional charge needed to kick-start the fission trigger
2020-07-31
So in my bat-shit crazy realm, the "squib" isn't a squib seen blasting out of various levels ahead of the destruction "dustification" (truly an accurate coinage by Dr. Wood), but instead it is the detonation of the conventional charge needed to kick-start the fission trigger, neither of which are designed for destruction.
The fission-trigger generates the requisite heat for fusion, which directions its expelled highly energetic neutrons upwards in more or less a cone shape.
The "sucking in" of the wall assemblies is not an optical illusion, nor is the hollow columns and spandrals of the wall assembly appearing more pliant and bending.
I figure probably four per detonation level located around the central core. The top 20 or so floors accordioning in on themselves (before destruction wave goes below the plane impacted levels) is a good indication of the FGNW's cone's height / range.
Both towers had remnant structures from the core area still standing after the external wall assemblies and floors fell away, but it is most evident in "the spire" of WTC-2. Given a multi-stage ignition process and desiring a stable mounting for targeting upwards, aiming away from the core on which it (and lower devices) was mounted would be paramount to preventing fracticide between FGNW. (The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is an indication of nuclear fizzle, as in a nuclear device not meeting it expected yields in a desired fashion, so we can surmise some fracticide between FGNW devices happening. Probably saved those firemen in the stairway, no less.)
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif
//
x224 Jerome Grogan : likely some classified u.s.a./Israeli high tech involved
2020-07-31
Maxwell Bridges
But why would nanothermite be on the scene?
Don't know what happened but would bet cash that u.s. govt has told not a single truth regarding the matter. The official narrative is not only a complete fabrication but probably the exact opposite of what actually happened.
My guess is no Muslims involved.
But likely some classified u.s.a./Israeli high tech involved in this catastrophe.
x226 Maxwell C. Bridges : deceit is in not looking for other causes
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan,
I do not argue "mutual exclusivity" in the destructive mechanisms, which is a disinformation technique. Whether or not NT was involved is no skin off the nose of my FGNW premise.
Interesting, those NT experts also weren't arguing for the exclusivity of NT. Their deceit is in not looking for other causes, for limiting discussion to NT's cul-de-sac, and for duping the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 Truth into arguing for NT as if it were exclusive.
As such, they can completely ignore all the evidence of things nuclear.
I agree with your other statements.
//
x228 Jerome Grogan : Quite a free press we have
2020-07-31
Maxwell Bridges
It is my thought that whatever happened to WTC 1, 2, + 7 was an absolutely extraordinary event. I don't see how anyone can watch the videos and believe anything from NIST. Bad as NIST is, they have admitted free fall of all three buildings. So really admitting demolition.
Yet almost zero reports on the news of this free fall fact, and no mention of the U of Alaska study. Quite a free press we have.
x230 Olof Won Howler : Time will show that you do have the Point here
2020-07-31
Maxwell Bridges
University of Alaska concluded in their study of Building 7 that it was controlled explosion. If I has it right, there should be more to come about it. Time will show that you do have the Point here after all...
x232 Bruce MacLeod : {2023} Unavailable Video
2020-07-31
x234 Bruce MacLeod : 9/11 Whistleblowers: Barry Jennings
2020-07-31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YhJcl0PO3U
9/11 Whistleblowers: Barry Jennings
YOUTUBE.COM
Bruce MacLeod
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/365-faq-5
FAQ #6: What was the molten metal seen pouring out of the South Tower minutes before its collapse?
AE911TRUTH.ORG
Bruce MacLeod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6kJ4EpmMw0
Prof. Dr. Niels Harrit about nanothermite on 9/11
YOUTUBE.COM
x236 Maxwell C. Bridges : debunk the shit out of NT on your own
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
I know you are trying hard to prop up the usage of NT as the primary mechanisms of destruction, and please don't take it out on me personally when ~YOU~ debunk the shit out of NT on your own, giving you all manner of cognitive dissonance headaches.
How are ~YOU~ going to debunk NT?
You are simply going to watch videos, each 2 hours long, but you'll be able to skip around and hone in on certain pieces of evidence; you don't have to watch them all start to finish (but you probably will at some point.)
As you are watching, you are simply going to postulate "where was NT positioned in the towers to create this anomalous piece? How far away? How much was used?"
When the hollow box columns of a wall assembly are popped apart at their welded seams over their entire length, where was the NT? How did NT create the steel doobies, the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly wrapped tightly by their spandrals?
Let me give you three hints.
1) NT doesn't explain them very well. (FGNW does.)
2) You won't find an explanation by Dr. Niels Harrit or Dr. Steven Jones on how NT created various artifacts in the videos.
3) Dr. Jones and AE9/11 Truth both claim that NT wasn't the sole mechanism, and later Dr. Jones even said "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Yet, did they go researching those other mechanisms? No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
//
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
YOUTUBE.COM
x238 Bruce MacLeod : The Smoking Gun: Molten Steel
2020-07-31
Image may contain: text that says '86% 9/11 molten steel 7:34 PM youtube. researcngate.net The Smoking Gun: Molten Stee.. facebook. com 9/11: Stabilized WTC2 Molten Metal... youtube.c Molten Debunking Truthers: "Molten St... askepticalhuman.co Nano thermite Urgent: Scientists pinterest.com Discover Updates Search ?? Collections More'
x240 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thank you for this evidence of FGNW involvement
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
Thank you for this evidence of FGNW involvement!
9/11 wasn't perfect, and some of the multiple FGNW might have been fracticided and thus didn't reach their expected nuclear yield, resulting in nuclear fizzle.
What was the date of extraction of that red hot piece of metal?
Kindly calculate the amount of NT required to generate the heat for this molten piece?
You see, once NT has consumed all of its agents, the reaction stops, and what's around it cools. Presumably according to your beliefs, the NT keeping this metal glowing was unspent from its original destructive purposes.
To help you out, here's where I do a similar assignment for you.
+++ quote from one of my articles
NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. Therefore Dr. Steven Jones, who allegedly found energetic particles of NT in his dust samples, suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX.
Unfortunately on paper, RDX or similar explosives exasperate getting NT to explain the second anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.
Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume "salting" of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT. Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers. In other words, add this to the gross estimates already provided by Dr. Harrit.
//
x242 Bruce MacLeod : present your case with supporting evidence to Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
2020-07-31
Bruce MacLeod
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/
EXHIBITS INDEX — Grand Jury Petition | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9-11INQUIRY.ORG
Bruce MacLeod
In conclusion if you think you have positive evidence of your claims of nuclear bombs then you should present your case with supporting evidence to https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org as they are preparing to bring multiple cases against various US govt. bodies. Otherwise what you have presented so far is merely your opinion of 9/11events while all the evidence to be presented relys on eyewitness accounts and exhaustive research by experts in ttheir own fields. If you think your efforts are competent enough to go to trial and bring down the cabal by citing people like Judy Woods then I can only wish you the best of luck. Meanwhile I'm sticking with simple truths and facts that the peer reveiwed researched evidence delivers..
Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry | Integrity, Accountability & Transparency
LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9-11INQUIRY.ORG
x244 Maxwell C. Bridges : thank you for the suggestion!
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
You make a good point, and thank you for the suggestion!
//
x246 Maxwell C. Bridges : inquiry has been submitted
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
A message to the 9/11 inquiry has been submitted. Thanks you.
//
x248 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW can address them, but NT hasn't because NT can't.
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
In reading over the other statements in your comment, let me assure you that my analysis is more than my opinion. The same eyewitness accounts and exhaustive research by experts is re-purposed in my FGNW premise in one manner or another. (It is a shame when I prove the "exhaustive research" sometimes to be much less than that and even downright purposely deceitful.)
I was in Dr. Wood's camp before, and it took a second pass on her book before I detected the deceit: she drops lots of dangling innuendo; connects no dots; draws no conclusions; and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. BUT, she does do a great job of collecting anomalous pieces of evidence THAT ANY 9/11-THEORY-DU-JOUR must address in order to be complete... And wouldn't you know it? FGNW can address them, but NT hasn't because NT can't.
How will ~YOU~ prove that last bold statement?
Those NIST videos in the other thread that you were asked to view and contemplate how NT was positioned to account for it?
You do that work open-mindedly and honestly, and you'll easily be won over into the FGNW camp.
//
x250 Rob Meek : John Gross of NIST lied about molten materials
2020-07-31
https://youtu.be/X5clsD-sJag
John Gross of N.I.S.T. lied about molten materials on 9/11
YOUTUBE.COM
x252 Wayne Coste : a hypothesis that fits the observations
2020-07-31
If you want a coherent analysis of the mechanism of destruction, here is a paper with a hypothesis that fits the observations. The key weakness that was used to destroy the Towers was the floor-truss-to-channel (core) bolted connections that were not designed to withstand significant propelled outward forces.
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
x254 Bruce MacLeod : Thanks for your input Wayne Coste, very much appreciated
2020-07-31
Thanks for your input here Wayne
There is a lot information to take in and I look forward to studying it as best I can, very much appreciated.
x256 Wayne Coste : surfing the big wave
2020-07-31
Bruce MacLeod
I'm in the process of revising a "sibling paper" that can be seen here. It provides a unique analysis of some perimeter columns I call "surfing the big wave."
NOTE: While I have called this final, I'm still enhancing it due to comments … See More
x258 Maxwell C. Bridges : Postulated Hypothesis: nuclear explosions on selected above-ground floors
2020-07-31
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
I determined rather quickly from scanning that your effort is disinformation. How so?
You frame nuclear means in only one way (old school) and thus incompletely & improperly.
Because I do also don't agree with it, let's ignore: "Postulated Hypothesis: Nuclear explosions underneath the core of the Twin Towers."
Instead, let's focus on: "Postulated Hypothesis: nuclear explosions on selected above-ground floors."
You wrote: "The audio record does not contain the required sounds of immense pressure waves needed to transmit nuclear-blast forces. Nuclear blast damage cannot be created by “silent” nuclear blasts. A review of radiation in dust samples showed that Alpha, Beta,and Gamma levels were effectively at background levels."
There you go again, framing the nuclear destruction has "a nuclear blast". Your disinformation effort completely ignores the fact that late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices are based off of neutron bombs and release 80% of their nuclear yields as highly energetic neutrons.
The destruction was not "silent", and the conventional start charge to kick off the fission-trigger for the fusion payload was indeed audible and visible (e.g., squibs). However, if only 20% of the nuclear yield was in a conventional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP, of course the destruction is going to muted, and certainly more quiet that NT and any chemical explosive it was mixed with to achieve the observed brisance. Good job of debunking your own (NT) premise with the "audio signature" argument.
The tritium report is guilty of re-defining background levels, along with poor sampling and a stilted scope. Given that so many other 9/11 reports also had built-in flaws, the voracity of the radiation reports needs to be questioned.
Even more damaging to your reputation, Dr. Andre Gsponer has been brought to your attention many times before. The fact that you did not incorporate his definition of FGNW into your discussion cinches your lack of ethics.
Just after the conventional starter charge for fission (that generates the heat for fusion), notice how the hollow box columns of the wall assembly become pliable and bend. [If NT were responsible, explain how it was positioned to account for this?]
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif
//
Part 6: FGNW Discussions with Dave Mudry, Stuart Crosbie, John Locke, Sam Haschets, Wayne Coste
x260 Dave Mudry : not possible to plant demolition devices in building 7 without getting caught
2020-08-05
NIST said it was not possible to plant demolition devices in building 7 without getting caught. But in 1978 NYC there was a building (Citicorp) that had to be fixed to prevent a collapse, and without getting caught because it was already occupied. The secret of the fix was kept for over 17 years
...Let that sink in.
x262 Maxwell C. Bridges : dig into their arsenals
2020-08-05
Dear Mr. Dave Mudry,
I must disagree with your WTC-7 skulduggery. NIST was correct that "it was not possible to plant (conventional chemical-based) demolition devices in building 7 without getting caught", because such would have been a logistics hurdle and require implementation on all levels.
However, if the US or Mossad digs into their arsenals, they'll come across fourth generation nuclear devices. Several of these in the right places where they did have access changes the paradigm. They could be placed in specially designed vending machines and wheeled into the building in broad daylight.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x264 David Dobs : Thank you for your FGNW blog
2020-08-05
Mr. Bridges. Thank you for your FGNW blog. I had never heard any of this before and it resolves so many loose ends that have bothered me, such as the extreme degree of pulverization observed.
x266 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW tie in more loose ends than lame-ass NT
2020-08-05
Dear Mr. David Dobs,
Indeed FGNW do tie in many more loose ends than lame-ass NT. //
x268 David Dobs : I spent hours reading your blog. Amazing scholarship!
2020-08-05
Absolutely! Just mentioned the best example. I spent hours reading your blog. Amazing scholarship!
x270 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thank you for your kind words about my article
2020-08-05
Dear Mr David Dobs,
Thank you for your kind words about my article. I have a new 2020 FGNW Opus that I'm procrastinating finishing. It'll re-purpose things from this and other efforts while adding a few things, like a fresh debunking of AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/#15 that proclaim -- and I agree -- that "a nuclear blast did not destroy the WTC structures." I agree because FGNW release 80% of their nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons which generates different effects and audio signatures than "a nuclear blast."
FWIW, you might find this predecessor of interest (although it has redundancy). It slaughters the NT sacred cow.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Most of my blog is a repetitive bore that I heartedly do ~not~ recommend reading from A-Z, or even a posting A-Z. However, it has been a most useful tool in taking ownership of my words, and debunking carousel-spinning opponents.
Legacy and an ability to change my views when presented with new information, sets my efforts apart. If someone could convince me otherwise on FGNW, I'd be singing a different tune within the fold of mainstream 9/11 truth. But as my blog documents, Facebook as a lot of bots and agents with agendas that prevents them from truly rational discussion. They get tripped up early by not being able to -- as if an order from higher ups -- read my blog posting and drag back specific things that are in error.
//
x272 Stuart Crosbie : there where no nukes used on 911; firemen are living proof
2020-08-06
2020-08-06
Our group rules are there for a reason, there where no nukes used on 911, here is the proof, these firemen are living proof,that there where no nukes at the towers, if there was , these brave firemen would not be alive, time to get rid of the eejits that don’t do there own research, and can’t think for themselves, these are the people that make the truth movement look like a bunch of clueless morons!!!
x274 Maxwell C. Bridges : nukes are framed wrong, on purpose.
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
You wrote: "there was no nukes used on 911, now hear is your solid factual proof, these firemen are living proof there was no nukes, if there was , these brave firemen would not be alive"
I call bullshit on that. Nuclear devices were used, and the issue with most of those who champion nukes and / or debunk nukes is that they frame them wrong, on purpose.
Late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices used a conventional charge to kick-start a fission trigger that generates enough heat to start fusion, whereby 80% of the nuclear yield is target highly energetic neutrons.
Multiple FGNW per tower. I speculate 4 per detonation level, and probably 4-6 different levels. FGNW were aimed upwards in a cone-shaped output, so as to not fracticide neighboring or lower devices.
However, nuclear fizzle did happen (devices not meeting their expected yield), as is evident by the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and many other pieces of evidence that NT cannot come close to explaining.
The firemen were saved because the FGNW right below them or near them failed.
Here is a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable science publication talking about FGNW. Dr. Gsponer had been writing about nukes (in three different languages) in the 10 years prior to 9/11. This paper from 2005 is a major omission from Dr. Jones (2007) and Dr. Wood (2010).
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x276 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Gsponer, to my knowledge, hasn't written a single word about 9/11
2020-08-06
Dr. Gsponer, to my knowledge, hasn't written a single word about 9/11.
Here is my analysis, wrapping in lots of evidence data-mined from many other premises.
Proof of nukes leaks out all over, if you are looking for it.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x278 John Locke : nukes leave fallout
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
nukes leave fallout.
Just have some good old fashioned C-4 if you wanna blow up world trade.
x280 Maxwell C. Bridges : the type of nuclear device and their implementation determines fallout
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. John Locke,
That is a major fail of a response with clear indications that you did not even read what I posted.
To your points, nukes -- even FGNW -- have fallout. But the type of nuclear device and their implementation determines what you'll get. This fallout evidence leaks out all over if you are looking for it, despite the efforts at under-sampling, report-juking, and faulty conclusions. One of my favorite pieces of evidence is the NIST recording of radiation leaching off of the debris piles. Thus, the first error in your beliefs is that "there was no radiation / fallout." Quite the contrary, there was.
Secondly, bomb sniffing dogs would have detected the C-4 in the many weeks it would have taken to position them. The dogs only had a few days holiday before 9/11; not enough time for wiring.
Thirdly, if you did use C-4, you could at least configure them to ~not~ look like a controlled demolition.
Fourthly, overkill pulverization is the first clue that FGNW were used. Why? Because the implementors would not have planned for "overkill pulverization". Further, the hot-spots burned for many weeks after the fact, which represents a massive amount of materials UNSPENT from the original pulverizing task. The logistics of this obscenely massive overkill amount would have doomed the operation to detection early on.
FGNW don't have these problems. Kindly RTFM.
//
x282 Sam Haschets : dogs never had a holiday
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
" The dogs only had a few days holiday before 9/11; not enough time for wiring."
The dogs never had a holiday - there were three assigned full time - one died on 9/11 - and is memorialized on the NY PAPD page
But at any rate, do continue
Sam Haschets
and the dog's partner was one of those rescued from Stairwell B
x284 Maxwell C. Bridges : review your previous discussions with me and try not to repeat what was already discussed
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. Sam Haschets,
The vacation schedules of the bomb sniffing dogs is not my hobby-horse, otherwise I would have better dates. Having been around the 9/11 block many times, I have encountered many times the never-debunked assertion that the dog's holidays were the several days (and weekend) leading up to 9/11 (but not necessarily on 9/11, when they were heroically back at work.)
The implication is that the amount of time in the final phases of installation when explosive devices were brought into the building and hooked into whatever wiring and fixtures "construction workers" were making ready was short. Too short for conventional chemical based explosives including NT to be positioned to give overkill pulverizations.
But if we're only talking four FGNW devices per detonation level and 4-6 detonation levels, times two towers, plus WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7, then it becomes a more do-able project.
+++
Let me cut you off at the pass, Mr. Haschets. Kindly review your previous discussions with me and try not to repeat what was already discussed.
Part 4: "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
//
x286 John Locke : Fuck You Dear Mr Maxwell Bridges
2020-08-06
Dear Mr Maxwell Bridges
Fuck you
x288 Maxwell C. Bridges : I look forward to the sexual interactions that you encourage me to explore. Thank you for the wishes
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. John Locke,
Your highly emotional, if pithy, response to me pointing out that you haven't read the reference material given at the top of this thread or in my blog posting, well... It doesn't reflect well on you. Your rebuttal would have been stronger if you just would have STFU and RTFM instead of proving your insincerity.
I look forward to the sexual interactions that you encourage me to explore. Thank you for the wishes.
//
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
STFU
x292 Maxwell C. Bridges : should have taken your own "STFU" advice
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. John Locke,
You should have taken your own "STFU" advice before you made your comment, and maybe to curtail you even making a comment of such pithy wit. What a douche!
I mean, your last two responses to my reasoned & rational comments were clearly of higher intellectual and scholarly quality! It dawns on me that this isn't the first Facebook group dedicated to 9/11 that were in reality disinfo fronts manned by agents and bots. A tell of this group's insincerity is the scope-limits imposed on discussion from the get-go: no nukes and no DEW. I forgot to mention, FGNW are technically in both camps, being nuclear devices and directed energy weapons.
You are encouraged to ignore all further comments from me, or even to block me. That'll prevent me from being your trigger into woo-woo angry, meaningless comments.
//
x294 John Locke : Go plant light poles
2020-08-06
Go plant light poles
x296 Sam Haschets : "do you record all your conversations?" "Duh, affirmative."
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
do you record all your conversations ??
x298 Maxwell C. Bridges : I take ownership of my words
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. Sam Haschets,
I am glad you ask that astute question about whether I save off-list copies of all my FB conversations? No, I don't save ~all~ of them, because some are meaningful only in the moment and throwaway in the grand scheme of things.
To your point, I do save ~most~ conversations of a meaningful nature, like if it is on one of my hobby-horses. Typically, I'm writing & saving off-line anyway, so it isn't a hardship. I endeavor to write words from the onset that are worthy of preservation and publication in other venues (e.g., my blog). Why?
Because I do take ownership of my words and stand behind them.
Because I know how easily postings and discussions can be disappeared on FB by admins, posters, commenters.
In the process of writing my response to someone's comment, I first copy their comment so that I can quote them accurately in the response I'm authoring (and save URL and dates). In this manner, I end up acquiring both sides of the discussion to give proper context when re-purposed later.
Wouldn't you know it? This dutiful habit to build my legacy sometimes builds a brief legacy for others!
That's where the rub is, eh? Agents don't like legacy. They don't like it shown (in places they don't control) how many times they spun a disinfo carousel. Agents don't like trends of hypocrisy and deceit that get exposed across many discussions. Agents generally don't write words worthy of preservation, let alone re-purposing... You get the picture.
But kind of puts me into a different category, eh?
//
x300 Wayne Coste : survivors of Stairwell B
2020-08-06
Here is an article about the survivors of Stairwell B, and what it means for the mechanism of destruction of the Twin Towers.
https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/745-the-most-compelling-9-11-story
The Most Compelling 9/11 Story; The Miracle of Ladder 6
911TAP.ORG
x302 Sam Haschets : a NY Port Authority police officer
2020-08-06
I am facebook friends with one of the survivors - a NY Port Authority police officer - truly the last men out of the towers
x304 Maxwell C. Bridges : the multiple FGNW did not all reach their expected full nuclear yield
2020-08-06
It just means that, of the multiple FGNW used on the tower -- 4 devices per detonation level, 4-6 detonation levels -- not all of them reached their expected full nuclear yield.
Refer to this peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x306 Stuart Crosbie : nothing in your article shows or proves FGNW was used on the tower
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
there’s nothing in your article that shows or proves FGNW was used on the tower? No proof whatsoever. Pure imagination bullshit !
x308 Maxwell C. Bridges : your alternative has so many anomalous pieces of evidence that it cannot explain, but FGNW can
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
If that is the entirety of your scholarly rebuttal, then I reply in kind that your alternative (which I assume is nanothermite) has so many anomalous pieces of evidence (like in the NIST videos of the scrapyards) that it cannot explain, but FGNW can.
But please, go ahead and try. How do your alternative methods (NT) explain various pieces of evidence in the videos? More specifically, where was the NT placed in relation to the pieces observed to affect bending and splitting of hollow box columns along their welded seams?
And while you're looking for the research and analysis of others to explain these artifacts, let it be a sign when you come up short and have to wing it with your own smarts and acumen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
//YOUTUBE.COM
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
x310 Stuart Crosbie : don’t take me for a dafty
2020-08-06
Dear mr Maxwell Bridges have a read at the group rules for our group, don’t take me for a dafty,
x312 Maxwell C. Bridges : you made the nukes or DEW post to which I replied with a proper description of the 9/11 nuclear devices
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
I'm good at adhering to rules of the group, even ones poorly written: "we also do not allow posts by or about Dr Judy Wood , we also do not do nukes nor Direct Energy Weapons."
For the record, I did not make any "POSTS" in your group having to do with nukes or DEW. No, you made the POST, and I merely submitted comments to it that brought up a proper description of the 9/11 nuclear devices (FGNW). Technically, I am within your group's own rules.
Speaking of your post, you boldly plant the deceitful and wrong hypnotic suggestion: "there where no nukes used on 911." Thus, you as an admin made discussion of nuclear devices acceptable in this thread. [You can't prove that premise of no nuclear involvement. I've already done the homework in debunking just about any source you'd like to bring up to bolster your "no nukes" case, putting me a few steps ahead of you.]
Furthermore, when I included in my comment the link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, your reply should have giving me my warning THEN, if those were truly the group's rules "nothing 9/11 nuclear." But no. Your lame-ass response as an admin validated the FGNW topic for discussion in this thread and made it FAIR GAME.
The peer-reviewed article from Dr. Gsponer proves the development and existence of FGNW, and by itself should have you -- if you are indeed a sincere seeker of truth and not some agent with an agenda -- re-consider your "no nukes" premises, because they are based on a limited understanding and false assumptions about the range of nuclear devices' output.
FGNW are not your grandpa's nukes. Because grandpa's nukes are your nuclear conditioning as well as that of disinfo agents who promote 9/11 deep-underground nukes and Woodsian DEWers, it makes sense that your forum would scope limit their discussion. Let's fix your conditioning and assumptions.
What is interesting is that you don't go "pulling rank" about illegal nuclear topics until you are legitimately challenged to have your 9/11 theory-du-jour (which I assume is NT) explain the anomalous evidence from the NIST scrapyard videos. So even as I was trying to change the topic of this thread to NT (assuming this is your hobby-horse), YOU CAME UP SHORT!
No, Mr. Crosbie, I "don't take you for a dafty." But latter-day lurker readers might.
As I once wrote to Mr. Wayne Coste when I thoroughly debunked his "no nuclear blasts" derivative workes from AE9/11 Truth's FAQ #13 / #15 "no nuclear blasts" efforts -- that I agree with only because the nuclear framing of "nuclear blasts" is so deceitful --, "this is varsity 1st string, A-game time." You need to up your game.
//
x314 Wayne Coste : Sorry I just gave up arguing with a rock
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
Maxwell: Sorry I just gave up arguing with a rock.
From what I've observed by interacting with you, it seems you don't have any comprehension of either Newtonian physics of Quantum physics.
x316 Maxwell C. Bridges : dared me to critique your work then were a no-show in defending it
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
No, you just gave up. You dared me to critique your work. This, I did, section-by-section, neatly in individual top-level comments to make it easy for you to reply to specific topics. You couldn't be bothered to give a single rebuttal to any of the sections' various criticism. Not a single one.
Nor did you have any rebuttal for the phrase that pays, debunks your premises, and exposes you as a disinfo agent, paid-to-post. The phrase? "Nuclear blasts." Frame 9/11 nukes as "nuclear blasts," and sure, I'll readily agree that "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC buildings." Instead, "highly energetic neutrons emitted from FGNW destroyed the buildings."
In a Schadefreude sense, I love it when you continue to fail your integrity tests. But I also hate it, because you aren't being genuine or sincere.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
//
x318 Wayne Coste : flunked every test I gave you
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
Sorry Maxwell, you flunked every test I gave you, except fantastical fantasy thinking.
It’s an honor to have someone of your stature criticize me.
x320 John Locke : paid by the letter or what
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
are you paid by the letter or what
x322 Maxwell C. Bridges : not reading opponent's words puts one in a bad spot for any wannabe debunking efforts
2020-08-06
Dear Mr John Locke,
Your criticism is just another proof that you don't read your opponent's words, which puts you in a bad spot for any wannabe debunking efforts and dings your integrity.
//
x324 John Locke : not a debunker
2020-08-06
Maxwell Bridges
I’m not a debunker and you’re not legit.
Fuck off.
Block me.
x326 Maxwell C. Bridges : to your point, you haven't debunked anything
2020-08-06
>Dear Mr. John Locke,
If you are not a debunker (of nuclear premises), then why in the fuck are you even corresponding with me? But to your point, you haven't debunked anything; you've only unloaded curse words. Oooo, so witty and charming!
I'm "not legit"? Ooo, Sherlock, could it have been the picture of Heisenberg / Walter White / Bryon Cranston as my profile picture that gave you your first clue?
But baby, I've got legacy with my blog, and you don't. I did my research and you didn't. Hell, you can't even be trusted to read what your opponent writes, and weasels out of it at every turn (like a bot.) Failing your integrity test with flying colors.
You write like a bot: "Fuck off."
Why? What did I do?
You write like a bot: "Block me."
No, I said it first; YOU block ME!
//
x328 John Locke : you’re a no-planer and kosher too
2020-08-06
John Locke
Maxwell Bridges
you must be paid by the word.
You should just delete.
It’s pretty fucked up that you want to spin bullshit about 9/11.
I’ll bet you’re a no-planer and kosher too.
John Locke
Maxwell Bridges
Blow me
x330 Maxwell C. Bridges : envious of my word count
2020-08-06
Dear Mr. John Locke,
You sound so envious of my word count. The ladies all know that word-count isn't the only big thing I've got.
You forfeit the right to proclaim something as "spinning bullshit about 9/11" if you don't bring to the table a single flawed element that makes up its premise.
You wrote: "I’ll bet you’re a no-planer and kosher too."
Ten years ago, you would have won that bet about me being a no-planer, having been duped something fierce by September Clues. Eventually I found the evidence and analysis that debunked what had me duped, I publicly apologized, and now, more often than I want, I can be found debunking NPT@WTC.
The state of my pecker is of no concern to you; I'm not racist in my choice of pickles. My wall documents me being against Israel. You either didn't go to my wall to learn this, a classic bot move. Or you are dumber than rocks and not worthy of drinking my bong water.
P.S. Since you requested the servicing of your nether parts, how about you whipping out a picture of your non-Kosher pecker and posting it here so we can all see if it is worthy of such preferential treatment. Sorry that your sex life is so deplorable, you must seek sexual thrills from other men.
P.P.S. You write in the NEXT comment, "So are we gonna hump or what". I've edited this comment to show I saw it, but to let you have the last words in this thread, a triumphant response and capping tour-de-force!
//
x332 Maxwell C. Bridges : SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, and implementation viewpoints
2020-08-06
Here's something from the posting video. The firemen claim that they could heard each floor coming down and hitting the next. Yes, they heard something, but it wasn't each floor hitting the next. Why?
To make the math easy, let's assume the collapse time was 11 seconds (when it was actually less). 110 floors collapsing means 10 "floor crashes" per second, that the ear would not be able to distinguish and count. This is not what they heard.
However, if the demolition levels were, say, every 5 floors, they'd hear two "detonations" a second; or if every 10 floors, one detonation a second.
By the way, they didn't just hear something, they felt the detonation vibrations at a countable cadence.
In not just this videos of the posting but others, the firemen mention "boom-boom-boom" at a cadence you could count, and videos close-up of the event underscore this.
For the NT dead-enders, please explain how the NT was positioned to get, say, a destruction cadence of two detonations a second?
For the NT dead-enders, here is a NIST video from the scrapyards. Please speculate into the position or proximity of the super-duper nanothermite used to achieve the anomalous evidence captured in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
I don't have to debunk NT for you, because you will do it yourselves.
WARNING: Any sincere attempt at speculation into how NT created such wonders of destruction in the NIST scrapyard videos may give cognitive dissonance headaches, particularly to NT dead-enders. ... But you got to follow the Truth rabbit where ever it leads.
SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT (as the primary mechanism of destruction) would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, and implementation viewpoints and counter productive to the destruction goals. If NT (and chemical-based explosives) were the primary mechanism of destruction, they most certainly would ~not~ have been wired in with overkill pulverization amounts but would have been configured only with sufficient amounts to visually maintain the ruse that "office furniture fires and gravity" destroyed (but not "pulverized") the structures ~not~ at near free-fall accelerations. RED FLAG!!!
SPOILER: What mechanisms of destruction have energy in excess, are in the category of DEW, can deliver instantly energy deep in the molecular structure of their target, have a fingerprint of fission, have a fingerprint of fusion, and have an audio signature but not a deafening one?
//
Part 7: FGNW Discussions with Winston Smith, Lawrence Fine
x334 Winston Smith : the patterns of damage especially the lowest level B6
2020-08-05
2020-08-05
Examine the patterns of damage. Especially the lowest level B6.
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif
x336 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTC-4 had a geological formation under it
2020-08-05
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine,
This is an interesting GIF. You should watch it while also considering what was under WTC-4 still intact.
Again, I say WTC-4 had a geological formation under it.
//
x338 Lawrence Fine : very little damage above the surface of the bedrock
2020-08-05
Lawrence Fine
Oh, I have and that little red spot beneath #4 - - - as far as "intact" - - - pretty much except for that little red spot. You do understand that there was very little damage above the surface of the bedrock do you not Maxwell?
This image is of the TWO "subsidence" areas beneath building #4 near the beginning of excavation.
Those"formations" while "geological" were created by extreme heat on 9/11, not "ice age erosion".
Image may contain: outdoor and water
Lawrence Fine
and this is what was left when the excavation was done:
No photo description available.
Lawrence Fine
A revealing view on the TWO +diameters+ - 40' spheroid cavities beneath building #4.
Again Maxwell Bridges, I really appreciate the advise an information you shared which helped me to locate nd define these two cavities.
Image may contain: outdoor
x340 Maxwell C. Bridges : geology surveys knew of the anomaly but not its depth or extent
2020-08-05
Dear Mr Lawrence Fine
valcanos and the like have high heat, and you discount that geology surveys knew of the anomaly but not its depth or extent. //
x342 Lawrence Fine : two 40' "SPHEROID" cavities
2020-08-05
Lawrence Fine
Please rephrase and clarify your point.
These surveys are very well "defined" as to location and topography.
There are two 40' "SPHEROID" cavities, the eastern location, ground zero, 20' below and slightly eastward of building #4s east wall, the western cavity, nearly centered - center/front of building #4.
These cavities did not exist when the WTC was built in the 70s.
Damage Report - the above is a recent find - - - this image is my go to:
Image may contain: text that says 'Hudson River Cove Haul areas rated for load capacities 4WFC WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER 2WFC Winter Garden 3WFC WestStreet Street Deep 3WTC WTC 2WTC 6WTC WORLD TRADE CENTER 7WTC 4WTC Mara 5WTC CONDITION BASEMENT LEVELS Good Bad Gone Unsure Bathtub MAPPED OUT South section of World Trade Center basement is in the worst condition.'
Lawrence Fine
Next, this image (with the exception of the east bathtub)
Image may contain: text that says 'Damage patterns onbasement levels are nearly dentical to basement level and5 empty PATH train trainsits on tracks level Three seven recrushed W.T.C. W.T.C PATH TRAIN ROUTE KEY t? DAMAGE COL APSED OR HEAVY DAMAGE NTACT OR MOSTLY INTACT NOT INSPECTED ORUNDETERMINED'
x344 Winston Smith : no reason to create underground cavities
2020-08-05
What is the 9/11 connection? I can see no reason to create underground cavities, (that somehow filled themselves with boulders, sand and rocks !!), that did no damage to the concrete slabs above, or adjacent to the towers. And no damage to the slurry wall. And never compromised the structural integrity of multi-story buildings that surrounded them. Help me out here. I'm baffled.
x346 Maxwell C. Bridges : disinfo agents would constantly point to this really deep geological formation under WTC-4 and regularly implied this was under both towers
2020-08-05
Dear Mr. Winston Smith,
You echo my discussions with Mr. Lawrence Fine. In addition, in the 1980's (I believe) with the technology of the time (pinging and listening for echos), they did geological surveys. They knew there was a great underground anomaly, just not its extent.
So here's the deal. Out of necessity to keep the public thoroughly distracted and flustered, the PTB inserted some form of disinformation into just about everything regarding 9/11. There isn't an "official" report (or from AE9/11Truth) that doesn't have one or two glaring flaws. The most obvious example is that that the Pentagon and Shanksville did not have sufficient debris to suggest a real airplane crashed; to distract from this, they came up with the ludicrous "no planes theory" (NPT) at the WTC, based on misrepresenting video footage from multiple perspectives, faulty analysis of the radar data, holograms, ignoring physical evidence of planes (or stating they were planted), misrepresenting the high velocity physics of both the towers and the aircraft, and other things.
9/11 did use nuclear devices, and the evidence of such leaks out ~all~ over, in each and every report, action / non-action, etc. They were late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) which use a conventional charge to kick-start a small fission trigger that generates the heat required for fusion which then released 80% of the already-subkiloton nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion.
Be that as it may, the government ~never~ wants to reveal its means-and-methods and admitting nuclear involvement would reduce the list of suspects dramatically and cause the PTB to lose the propaganda effort. So they cycled through gravity pancakes and other nonsense until they got Dr. Steven Jones (a) to piss on nuclear involvement in a shitty way and (b) to discover super-duper nano-thermite.
As part of Dr. Jones' disinfo effort, he did not frame the yield correctly, neither in size nor in output. Meanwhile, several different disinfo actors promoted deep-underground nukes and the towers being a nuclear chimney, and completely false framing.
TO YOUR QUESTION, to bolster the disinfo premise of deep-underground nukes, the disinfo agents would constantly point to this really deep geological formation under WTC-4 and regularly implied this was under both towers. [As you already note, this was on the other side of the intact slurry walls of the bathtub from the towers.]
To be fair, Mr. Fine is not in this camp per se, but he keeps championing that -- in addition to the nukes that decimated the towers and other WTC buildings -- WTC-4 had a nuke detonated under it for reasons that haven't been well speculated.
It wouldn't bother me if WTC-4 did have a nuke ignited below it, but I don't agree for many reasons, in no particular order:
- WTC-4 had gold vaults underneath it; some of the gold was recovered in the trailer of an abandoned semi in the old subway tunnels used as WTC-4 access. Money was a motivator; WTC-6 had its vaults emptied before the destruction, according to FEMA. 9/11 was a money heist, money laundering, and kick-start to war profiteering: follow the money.
- A large detonation under WTC-4 would have been notice at street level with, say, a large popped up mound and / or later sink hole that would have knocked other remnant structures on that portion of the WTC to the ground. The main edifice of WTC-4 was leveled, but not its north wing, not WTC-5, not WTC-6.
- The aforementioned geological surveys that hinted at a large anomalous formation from the 1980's.
- A new (to me) piece of evidence (GIF) that marks the damage to lower basement levels of WTC, showing even the damage inside the bathtub tapering off by B5 and B6. More importantly, it shows WTC-4 damage at ground level and B1, but then shows the deeper areas (like the vault and below the vault) as not being damaged.
- Too many times, the geological formation -- whether created by nukes or by God eons ago -- has been deceitfully and purposely associated with deep underground nukes allegedly deployed on the towers. Its disinfo purpose is to undermine any rational discussion of the actual FGNW used on the towers.
To sum up, Mr. Fine has a bee-in-his-bonnet about the geological formation under WTC-4 and it only being possible with nukes (but not the same nukes doing the other WTC destruction).
I disagree, and feel it is a misinformation distraction. [Misinformation and not disinformation, because Mr. Fine sincerely believes it.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x348 Lawrence Fine : full disagreement regarding the mechanics and dating of the "formations" beneath Building #4
2020-08-05
Maxwell Bridges
- Again, we're in full disagreement regarding the mechanics and dating of the "formations" beneath Building #4 and the "subsidence craters" beneath towers 1 and 2.
Also, I've NEVER touted nucs as the devices used to destroy the bedrock but use examples of underground nuclear tests for comparison as at this time I'm unaware of any "conventional" capable of producing the heat required.
x350 Winston Smith : perhaps brainstorm about it privately
2020-08-05
Maxwell Bridges
We can take this statement elsewhere, perhaps brainstorm about it privately. "The most obvious example is that that the Pentagon and Shanksville did not have sufficient debris to suggest a real airplane crashed;" I respectfully disagree. Parts were recovered but the images have been largely withheld, which fuels theories. Lots of people saw a plane at both locations.
x352 Maxwell C. Bridges : a cruise missile did the Pentagon damage, probably launched from the construction trailer
2020-08-05
Dear Mr. Winston Smith,
Where ever you want to discuss this, but I'd prefer on your wall or a decent 9/11 group we're both members of, and not as instant messages.
I think that the Pentagon and Shanksville both had insufficient debris (chairs, luggage, bodies) to be actual commercial aircraft.
Although these aren't my hobby-horses, I have studied them extensively. Here's the ironic part. The high velocity physics of the aircraft impacts to the towers that disinfo agents have been purposely malframing and misunderstanding to support NPT@WTC, is the same physics that debunks a real aircraft at the Pentagon.
The energy equation has a velocity squared term that really high velocities makes exponentially larger, sufficient to shatter materials (like sheet metal of wings), which seems to make them disappear in grainy VCR videos of network broadcasts. With such energy, the wings and tail as whole pieces would not be "bouncing" off of the towers, which also were not solid. (50% of the surface area was window slits; once penetration of wall assemblies, the amount of structure and content would have been comparatively weak to hinder further fuselage and engine penetration.) The point is, properly defined and described physics of high velocity impacts debunks NPT at the WTC.
Ironically, NPT at the WTC was spun up precisely to distract from the real instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
At any rate, the alleged aircraft of the Pentagon was flying at a high velocity too when its wings on both sides each clipped two or more light poles. The aircraft should have been crippled and spread in pieces all over the lawn. Whether or not a real aircraft flew, they would have to stage the poles. And then presto, CIT determines that eye-witnesses observed a plane flying a different path that went over the Pentagon. Ooops.
My speculation at the Pentagon is that a cruise missile did the damage, and was probably launched from the construction trailer that got torched near the spools of wire and was parked catty-wompus to the wall, but coincidentally aligned with staged flight path.
Be that as it may, ~if~ a real plane was used and really did impact the Pentagon, any one of the 86 or so FBI-confiscated videos ~could~ have quickly and effortlessly dispelled the notion of "no plane impact at Pentagon" instead of what they did provide: 7 inconclusive frames from a couple of parking lot cameras. None of the 86 videos were released to the public, because none were in line with the public myth that they were foisting on us (if they also weren't self-incriminating.)
The Pentagon and the towers have another anomaly in their alleged aircraft. None of the discovered parts were serial-numbered matched to the alleged commercial aircraft. The aircraft had their transponders off and had periods where they were off radar, appropriate for the old "plane switcharoo".
//
Part 8: FGNW Discussions with Sam Haschets, Imre Tihanyi, Bob Byron, John Jorgensen, Bruce MacLeod
x354 Maxwell C. Bridges : The rules of this group
2020-08-07
2020-08-07
The rules of this "It's a Fact" group state:
3. No DEW Direct Energy Weapons
There is zero evidence, a Judy Wood fantasy , our group will stick to factual evidence.
5. No nukes at the towers.
Zero evidence, let’s stick to what we know, rather than fantasy and hear say .
MY ASSUMPTION: Based on those rules, the founders and admins believe that nanothermite (NT) possibly mixed with other chemical explosives to achieve the observed brisance was the primary mechanism of destruction.
You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:
(1) by watching the NIST videos of the scrapyards and anomalous pieces of evidence, and
(2) by logically and rationally speculating where and how that super-duper nanothermite was positioned with respect to the anomalous pieces to create them.
(3) by researching what AE9/11 Truth and others published to specifically explain these anomalous pieces of evidence. [Unless the scent of the information makes you hopeful of finding someone else's analysis that you may include in your own #2 analsysis, to avoid frustration, limit your searching attempts to 1/2 hour.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
WARNING: Any sincere attempt at speculation into how NT created such wonders of destruction in the NIST scrapyard videos may give cognitive dissonance headaches, particularly to NT yeomen of 9/11 Truth.
You promote NT (and chemical explosives) as the primary mechanisms of destruction? You prove it!
That's all I ask.
And remember as part of rules #3 and #5 with my assumptions in parentheses, "our group will stick to factual evidence (of NT)" and "let’s stick to what we know (of NT), rather than fantasy and hearsay." For the sake of discussion, let's ignore how closed-minded this sounds.
SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT (as the primary mechanism of destruction) would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, implementation, and bloody-obvious viewpoints and counter productive to the destruction goals of something believable. If NT (and chemical-based explosives) were the primary mechanism of destruction, they most certainly would ~not~ have been wired in with overkill pulverization amounts but would have been configured only with sufficient amounts to visually maintain the ruse that "office furniture fires and gravity" destroyed (but not "pulverized") the structures ~not~ at near free-fall accelerations.
I don't have to debunk NT for you, because you will do it yourselves in trying to defend NT.
SPOILER: "Fantasy and hearsay"? NT is thy name.
Once this exercise is finished, the topic for another posting is whether the rules #3 and #5 need to be amended.
P.S. High school sophomore English class taught students to not use over-generalizations, because all it takes is one excepton to prove it wrong or undermine it. The language of rules #3 and #5 are over-generalizations: "There is zero evidence (of DEW)" and "Zero evidence (of nukes)". Evidence of such does exist, so these hypnotic suggestions are factually wrong, but I will wait until there is a rules change or rules exception granted to defend my statement.
"This is varsity 1st string, A-game time." You need to up your game.
//
x356 Maxwell C. Bridges : Let's see some scholarly speculation in your defense of NT
2020-08-07
Dear misters Stuart Crosbie, Sam Haschets, John Locke, Michael Pegausch, Imre Tihanyi, Greg Greg McGill, and others:
Let's see some scholarly speculation in your defense of NT, by simply explaining how NT accounts (placement, position) for these pieces of evidence in the video.
You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:
(1) by watching the NIST videos of the scrapyards and anomalous pieces of evidence, and
(2) by logically and rationally speculating where and how that super-duper nanothermite was positioned with respect to the anomalous pieces to create them.
+++
Meanwhile, because I'm a fair and generous debate opponent, I'm providing a link to a previous version of my hobby-horse premise. You don't need to dwell on the premise, but if you're curious this article has sections that not only slaughter the NT sacred cow, but marinate and barbeque it. If you are curious, they are sections:
2. Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow
3. Running the numbers on NT
4. Test the Samples
5. Sleight of Hand
6. Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires
7. Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies."
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x358 Sam Haschets : It was not nano thermite
2020-08-07
Maxwell Bridges
I agree with you on one point
It was not nano thermite
x360 Imre Tihanyi : Those 3 Giant Structures, were PULLED DOWN! End of story!!
2020-08-07
You two found each other? What a surprise? Stop the 'DISINGENUOUS' B.S.!! Those 3 Giant Structures, were PULLED DOWN! End of story!!
x362 Maxwell C. Bridges : the "how" really does matter.
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Imre Tihanyi,
Agreed that the WTC complex was brought down by planned military controlled demolition. But the "how" does matter.
Let me give you an analog.
A man is found bled out and dead in the kitchen with a knife nearby in the bloody hands of his significant other. Version A, the significant other was battered by the man over a long period, reached for the Cutco cerated meat carving knifes from the kitchen counter, and lashed out in self-defense. Version B, the significant other had a personal hobby called "Knife Smithing", deployed a metal torch to cut the shape of the blade, used metal grinders to knock of the edges, spent countless hours with a wet stone honing the blade edge, not to mention the effort spent on the wood and gem inlays to the handle to give it perfect balance. When the significant other lashed out at the victim in the kitchen with this hand crafted weapon, the effect was like that of a sewing machine stabbing up and down the victim's body leaving countless wounds.
As you can see, although only one victim died between version A and version B, the "how" really does matter.
In the case of 9/11, the "how" matters as well, because many suspects can believable come across conventional explosives, but only two suspects (USA and Israel) can come up with fancy-schmancy late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices.
Further, only FGNW really explains the deceitful song-and-dance and dog-and-pony shows, and how nearly everyone in Congress and the corporate media suddenly became unquestioning, lock-stepping, Constitution-shredding, PATRIOTS. Whether or not they had foreknowledge of 9/11, they were complicit in the ongoing cover-up and being "satisfied" with lame and MIA explanations. Why?
Because any version B whiff of any form of 9/11 nuclear devices going viral in the USA public conscience even to this day could have major figuratively nuclear fallout in this country's leadership, institutions, and even boundaries and divisions -- a thorough house cleaning and a retro-active stabbing of the NWO.
As such, infiltrators and instigator from the government to this day occupy (and even establish) forums like this to keep awareness away from the deficiencies of version A (nanothermite) and the more highly probable version B (FGNW).
Don't be a party pooper. Let's let the agents and bots hang themselves with their analysis of NT accounting for the evidence in the videos. Then the sincere seekers of 9/11 Truth can more easily move on to more valid answers and their more likely instigators (Christian Zionist and normal Zionists).
//
x364 Maxwell C. Bridges : call your mechanism of destruction "devices X."
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Sam Haschets,
You wrote that you agreed it wasn't NT. Great. Let's call your mechanism of destruction "devices X."
The exercise in play at the moment is for participants to view the NIST videos of the scrap yard and speculate how "devices X" would be positioned with respect to the evidence to create the evidence.
[If your "devices X" ends up being "jet fuel, office furnishings, and gravity as per the OCT, well... I don't want to ruin the fun and I also don't want to inflict needless damage to your integrity and reputation, which will be the ultimate outcome even sticking just to the evidence. So, forewarned is forearmed.]
Looking forward to your scholarly analysis!
//
x366 Imre Tihanyi : SAM H. is a HASBARA plant!
2020-08-07
SAM H. is a HASBARA plant! Ignore him! We must force 'OUR CONGRESS' (I start to question that), to get on the ball' and start an investigation into, 'who done', the 'Pulling Down' of the WTC Towers #1,#2,#7! That will be an almost impossible effort on the part of the American Citizens, who are REAL PATRIOTS, since , like our late Congressman from Ohio, Jim TRAFICANT stated many times; "Our Congress is a 'BROTHEL', they are not serving the American people, but Special Interests"! Like they worry about, 'Phone Calls to the Ukraine', but don't give a sh--t about almost 3 thousand innocent Collateral Victims, art the WTC, Crime of the AGES done against the American people on our own SOIL!! What 'CHUTZPAH' from the DEMONIC Undertakers?? BUT, why not, they gotten away before, with murdering American Citizens for a, 'FALSE FLAG' cause: www.holocaustonthehighseas.com !! That one failed! '9/11/2001' on the other hand was a GREAT SUCCESS for the DEMONIC CREATURES, dragging US into the unending WARS in the MIDDLE EAST!!
x368 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Hasbara" is "Public diplomacy in Israel"
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Imre Tihanyi,
In my ignorance, I had to look up "Hasbara": "Public diplomacy in Israel, also known as Hasbara, refers to public-relations efforts to disseminate positive information abroad about the State of Israel and its actions."
Previous data points collected on Mr. Sam Haschets do align with that trend line in my mind. However, he's being given the opportunity to be different, open-minded, scholarly. Either the data point falls outside that trend line, or lies smack in the middle of it. Either way, I'm letting him have a chance.
Based on the last conversation (in another thread) that I had with Mr. Haschets where he asked about my online habits -- writing / saving off-line, responding to specifics in another's comment, republishing in a forum I control --, I think any Hasbara agents would be worried, because I give them legacy they might not like for other disingenous trends exposed in the exchanges. If the shit goes bad because he playes it wrong, and he shoots his online Hasbara profile in the foot and other choice places.
This being said, your Holocaust on the high seas comment is way off-topic. You are welcome to make your own posting for it, but I would prefer that it not muddy the waters from the experiment currently in progress: describe how a given mechanism of destruction accounts for the recorded scrap yard evidence. You are welcome to use another top-level comment to attempt the exercise.
But let's stay focused here, or we won't get good results.
//
x370 Imre Tihanyi : from the same 'Clique' Tribe
2020-08-07
Just my opinion! The 'Perpetrators' of '9/11/2001' come from the same 'Clique' Tribe, as the ones who done the attack on the "USS LIBERTY!" One 'False Flag' they, attempted Failed, the other became a 'Roaring Success'! Because of that, 'success', WE have turned the Middle East, into, 'HELL on EARTH!" That is, "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY", on the 'nth' scale!
x372 Bob Byron : do you actually know how 9-11 truth came to be?
2020-08-07
"MY ASSUMPTION: Based on those rules, the founders and admins believe that nanothermite (NT) possibly mixed with other chemical explosives to achieve the observed brisance was the primary mechanism of destruction.'
"You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:'
WHOA there........
based on the rules of DEBATE, and the legitimacy of science.....the NIST LEADERS claim NEW PHYSICS is what allowed the FIRES PRESENT to somehow cause structural resistance to make gravity display all the visual and physical attributes of an EXPLOSIVE FORCE for the FIRST TIME in structural/fire prevention history...three times all on ONE single day...never once before or since.
do you actually know how 9-11 truth came to be?
it started with the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS demanding the amazing NIST LEADERS support their AMAZING new physics.
..and they refuse to do this, to this day...
that is why 9-11 TRUTH started.
9-11 groups are run on the FACT of debate.
so, DID fire and GRAVITY do this...or not.
ALL TAUGHT science says, nope!
now, you know me well enough to know I stick to proper Dictum...not bring in my OWN baggage to screw up the works, like you guys seem to continually want to do.
the OS is FIRE and GRAVITY!
their own NIST report shows the NIST LEADERS the liars they are....(the reason they ignore their own investigation).
yet you guys with YOUR AGENDAS, refuse to acknowledge that FACT and the ACTUAL REAL reason we are all here.
to support the structural community.
He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
HOMEPAGE.NTU.EDU.TW
x374 Maxwell C. Bridges : the rules for the forum exclude "NookieDoo"
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bob Bryon,
I agree with your sentiments, but not necessarily the diversion under this posting (make your own), because I'm trying to hold NT supporters accountable.
I am not the one who established the rules for the forum that excludes "NookieDoo" (the pet name for my hobby-horse).
BUT, I am the one who made the posting with its narrow theme for this thread, while working within those rules of the forum.
I'm challenging those who promote nanothermite as the end-all/cure-all of primary mechanisms of destruction to simply defend their claim.
//
x376 Bob Byron : holding NT supporters accountable is irrelevant
2020-08-07
Maxwell Bridges
" I'm trying to hold NT supporters accountable.'
???why?...it is irrelevant.
why would you attack those 'individuals' and their 'alternative' yet leave the LIES of the NIST LEADERS untouched giving all the reason for the alternatives....even you.
do you actually think a lighter-built, top-mass' can plow through, unabated the lower, stronger built 4/5th and NOT lose ANY mass due to KNOWN physics, only to meet it's demise AT LOBBY ELEVATION, (TIMES TWO)...where ?somehow, lobby elevation has the power to force a "crush-up' sequence????
at 5 tenths of a second slower than free falls 'acceleration'..(WTC2)
seriously dude...do YOU actually think NEW PHYSICS occurred to allow a FIRST TIME 'crush-?UP? sequence....ONLY ON 9-11??????
and if so, how does this ?smart-gravity' know to stop BOTH COLLAPSES AT lobby elevation rather than continue down the six more levels to the bedrock?
here YOU are wanting to hold those ?accountable? for questioning the OS with their 'ALTERNATIVE' and pushing some other argent is causing this...
we get that 'suggestion' of the 'agent' from the FEMA C report where they discovered an abundance of Sulfur that is not suppose to be there in that form, and was determined to create conditions to lower the melting point of the steel columns.
it's not pulled out of a 'truthers' as*....it is an actual scientific finding from 9-11.
I suggest not challenging me....because I can make your life miserable here...but that is not my intention....you have some good material, you just need to USE IT THE RIGHT WAY!
i.e. showing the NIST leaders the liars they are to segue into.....your evidence.
you believe what you do because of 'these' lies from the NIST LEADERS.
.
"I'm challenging those who promote nanothermite as the end-all/cure-all of primary mechanisms of destruction to simply defend their claim."
my question to you is..."why"?
why don't you challenge debunkers to prove FIRE and GRAVITY, since that is what THEY are here PUSHING!!!
the Gov. SCIENTISTS are pushing the lie....and you leave them untouched.
debunkers are pushing the lie, you leave them untouched.
...not one of them can support the official story.
not one of them can provide peer review from ANYONE in support of the NIST LEADERS new physics claims.
I think you know this.....yet you refuse to use it to even support YOU.
lets recap today's event...
a 'nuke' truther insisting on arguing with a 'thermite' truther with endless 'circular' discussions.
pretty effen PATHETIC!
derbunkerism takes on many forms......just saying....
No photo description available.
Meme: 
x378 Maxwell C. Bridges : Pretty effen PATHETIC!
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
"Pretty effen PATHETIC!" the distracting carousel spins you crank up. Please stop doing them IN MY EFFEN THREADS that have a purposeful narrow scope!!!
Stay on task and let the purposes of this endeavor come to fruition.
I'll not waste my time repeating what the assignment is, because it is given in my top-level posting.
Please re-read the assignment, and if you wish to participate under its rules, you are welcome to.
If you insist on trying to distract with attacks on the official conspiracy theory, I will start purging your unrelated comments from this thread.
I wrote: "I'm challenging those who promote nanothermite as the end-all/cure-all of primary mechanisms of destruction to simply defend their claim."
You responded: "my question to you is...'why'?"
If we can't get the (NT) "stop-gap" lies exposed, we'll never get to Truth and to the measures that are needed to FIX the ills. Cognitive dissonance doesn't just apply to those unquestioningly supportive of the OCT, but also to various members of 9/11 Truth, who have been purposely duped by lesser, incomplete, truths.
Humor me and play to the rules of this posting, or don't play along but just move along instead. YOU ARE NOT HELPING with your carousel spins.
//
x380 Maxwell C. Bridges : either FIRE causing gravity to do something VERY SPECIAL....or it wasn't.
2020-08-07
Bob Byron
"You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:...and others:"
??
others, here.....
it was either FIRE causing gravity to do something VERY SPECIAL....or it wasn't.
that is what 9-11 TRUTH is all about.
you do not get to create your OWN agenda for 9-11.
the OFFICIAL STORY is what is up for DEBATE.....
not petty arguing over 'alternatives'.....
?you want people to believe you?, then GIVE THEM A REASON TO..i.e. showing the OS the lie it is will suggest that reason.
DERbunkerism does take on many forms...
and it seems the bottom line for them ALL is to DISTRACT away from the LYING official story...just saying...
Image may contain: text that says 'a) e) M000 00 Crus Jown Phase II. Crush-Up hase http://www.nistrevie OWTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSEA AZANT.pdf Progressive collapse takes when light and weak top c of any structure destroys the heavier anu Her bottom by gravity. It only happens in NY/USA though'
x382 Maxwell C. Bridges : account for the anomalous pieces of evidence in the NIST videos from the scrapyard
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
This is a continuation of my comment given below your other top-level posting.
No, I strongly disagree: the purpose of this thread is ~not~ to discuss or be distracted by the official conspiracy theory of office furniture fires and gravity being the primary mechanisms of destruction. No, no, no!!! I've been on the carousel too many times.
The purpose of this thread is to account for the anomalous pieces of evidence in the NIST videos from the scrapyard.
Now, if an OCTer wants to enter this discussion and explain how gravity causes those scrapyard samples, fine! They'll have a worse-off problem than the NTers in their explanation.
Meanwhile, though, I won't have you setting up strawmen arguments that spin the merry-go-around in unproductive circles.
I encourage your participation though. How about picking out a piece or two of evidence from the videos and ponder out loud how NT (and/or office fire with gravity) could have created it, or that you are at a loss, so the 9/11 Truth movement must consider other sources.
At that point, we'll request a rules change for this forum so that other sources of destruction can be fairly discussed.
//
x384 Bob Byron : CIRCULAR discussions that go NO WHERE!
2020-08-07
Maxwell Bridges
"At that point, we'll request a rules change for this forum so that other sources of destruction can be fairly discussed..'
respectfully speaking...
therein LIES the problem....these CIRCULAR discussions that go NO WHERE!
the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY is not interested in 'discussions'....we have had them for the last 20 YEARS!
discussing goes NO WHERE!
but showing the NIST LEADERS deliberately LYING and IGNORING their own INVESTIGATION to go elsewhere to something from someone else, they REFUSE to support and MIGHT be part of the COVER-UP...
...and is a LEGITIMATE reason to get the COURT SYSTEM involved.
..IF THE PEOPLE KNOW!
the people do not know.
the 'people' do not know the NIST LEADERS leave their own public investigation to go elsewhere to use BS they refuse to support.
yet it is written in BLACK AND WHITE FOR ALL TO SEE!
..everything showing them the liars they are IS DOCUMENTED.
...if one cares to look.
but it seems some are against actually NAMING those who can start this HUGE BALL a rolling and end 9-11 truth....because once it starts, there is NO stopping it.
and where are we.....FURTHER away than ever before.....
THAT is why the scope is limited here...
.
"How about picking out a piece or two of evidence from the videos and ponder out loud how NT (and/or office fire with gravity) could have created it, or that you are at a loss,
for ENDLESS CIRCULAR DISCUSSIONS that lead to NO WHERE?????....
dude, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW THE HELL GRAVITY DOES THAT!!!!!!!
the OS is FIRE and GRAVITY!
impacts were determined to me minimal and localized, per NIST report...not part of the actual collapse sequence.
.
"so the 9/11 Truth movement must consider other sources."
YOUR definition.
take a good look at what YOU wrote...."9/11 Truth movement"
NINE ELEVEN TRUTH!!!
i.e. the TRUTH from the NIST LEADERS.
NO one has to support and PROVE an 'alternative'
the NIST LEADERS though MUST PROVE fire is the reason gravity pretends to be an EXPLOSIVE FORCE....X3 only observed on 9-11.
Explosions,N.F.P.A.18.1 - General:
“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”
sorry, but there will be no rules change here to accommodate individuals endless distraction AWAY from what will get us a NEW INVESTIGATION...or at the very least, showing the NIST LEADERS who run away, the liars they are....leading the way for future law suits.
*off topic*
The Senate did 'change-the-rules' for Democrat Markie from Massachusetts during his election run a couple months ago when he did NOT have enough signatures to even be a candidate, (yet the OTHER candidates running against him did have all their signature), the DEMOCRATS in Washington CHANGED THE RULES, just for him.
our RINO Baker loves his Democratic constituents!!!!!
Image may contain: sky, ocean, cloud, outdoor and water
x386 Maxwell C. Bridges : airing them here in a distracting manner
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
I don't discount the points you make, but I do take issue with you airing them here in a distracting manner from my posting's purposes. You are free to make your own postings and complain mightily there, and I might even lend you a hand. But not here.
Your inability to take on the actual task of assignment makes you guilty of the crime you decry: "CIRCULAR discussions that go NO WHERE!"
Stay on task with the assignment, and it will go somewhere.
//
x388 John Jorgensen : Geological Survey findings of tritium must have been falsified
2020-08-07
So the Geological Survey findings of tritium must have been falsified , ok .
x390 Maxwell C. Bridges : The Achilles Heel of all who poo-poo nuclear weapons is the scope-limited tritium report not being the authoritative word on exactly what tritium was present
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. John Jorgensen,
It wasn't the USGS who measured for tritium. Instead, the USGS sampled the dust and their tables document Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities. (Evidence of fission.)
No, it was a non-government group at the behest of the government who accepted a scope-limited premise of associating tritium with building content and did their distracting jobs admirably. Alas, their shoddy sampling for tritium -- delayed, spread in time, and from limited sampling points --, and juking in the report (e.g., redefining background levels) were just A-okay both for their limited scope and their conclusions about negligible health effects.
The Achilles Heel of all who want to poo-poo nuclear weapons (like Dr. Jones, AE9/11Truth) is that the scope-limited tritium report cannot be used as the authoritative word on exactly what tritium was present, nor can it be used to exclude nuclear devices (conveniently out-of-scope for them to consider). They accepted this report unquestioned and unchallenged.
Tritium is used in fusion and is the fundamental building block of all late-third/early-fourth generation nuclear devices.
The dog-and-pony shows on tritium and to associate them with exclusively aircraft exit signs, weapons' scopes, and time pieces (and not to mention weapons at all), is a major clue about how they are duping us.
+++ For reference purposes
FGNW:
A conventional chemical charge is used to ignite a fission-trigger. Neither that charge or the trigger are destructive to the structure; very much limited and focused. The fission-trigger generates the heat for fusion. In one of many FGNW designs, the fusion stage released 80% of its nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons aimed upwards.
//
x392 Bruce MacLeod : Reward for Refuting WTC7
2020-08-07
http://westviewnews.org/2020/01/09/engineers-pledge-45000-reward-for-refuting-wtc7-university-of-alaska-study/web-admin/?fbclid=IwAR3nrEn7Vvq5CIL3uXrXWlYF_kQN7JR8sB2I0nWAwRlgMHa0u4URjL0ffSA
Engineers Pledge $45,000 Reward for Refuting WTC7 University of Alaska Study | WESTVIEW NEWS
WESTVIEWNEWS.ORG
x394 Maxwell C. Bridges : I don't have to debunk NT; you will
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
Show me where that link talks about the specific pieces of evidence depicted in the NIST videos of the scrapyard? I missed it.
Don't evade the assignment.
I don't have to debunk NT; you will, eventually, once you attempt this task.
//
x396 Bruce MacLeod : viewing 2 hours of video footage of a scrapyard proves absolutely nothing
2020-08-07
The prospect of viewing 2 hours of video footage of a scrapyard proves absolutely nothing without taking samples of the metal in question. Since the criminal act of destroying that evidence was hurriedly carried out by the guilty parties then I conclude this amounts to nothing more than a waste of time and contributes to helping said guilty parties in running down the clock to no avail.
x398 Maxwell C. Bridges : it's actually four hours of video
2020-08-07
Dude, don't be a weasel. And it's actually four hours of video.
Further, you don't have to watch the whole thing (but probably will, because it is fascinating.) No. Pick out some interesting exhibit and just concentrate on it. One example.
Just don't make it something lame. Preferable, maybe its a wall assembly or a box column of a wall assembly that has interesting damage over its entire length.
If you're stuck, I'll provide some time stamps.
Yes, although the criminal act of destroying the evidence was indeed hurriedly carried out by duped useful minions of the guilty parties, it doesn't mean that nothing anomalous was left that can't get your old noggin' a percolating and seeing the truth of NT.
//
x400 Bruce MacLeod : Tic Tok Tik Tok
2020-08-07
Tic Tok Tik Tok........
x402 Maxwell C. Bridges : Not "Tic Tok" but "chop chop."
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
Whatever that means.
Again, the point of this exercise is to take the primary mechanism of destruction (assumed to be NT) and see if it can logically really account for the evidence. Where was the NT positioned and what was its location relative to the piece your scholarly efforts focus on?
Not "Tic Tok" but "chop chop."
P.S. I didn't tell the others, but failure in this assignment or to attempt the assignment will be considered a major sign of weakness in whatever mechanism you choose to the point of default losing and thereby forfeiting the right to champion said mechanism in other venues,... because, hey, you failed to have your mechanism explain it, so it is wrong. (See Dr. Griffin.)
//
x404 Bruce MacLeod : not interested in your theories
2020-08-07
It means I'm really not interested in your theories. I've told you what to do if you have solid incontrovertible evidence of what you claim. But please stop bringing my name into anything to do with them.
x406 Maxwell C. Bridges : we're discussing are "your theories"
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
You wrote so childishly: "It means I'm really not interested in your theories."
Idiot! My theories aren't being discussed under this posting. My theories are technically against the rules of the forum.
What we're discussing are "your theories".
You support NT as the primary cause of destruction, correct? You defend it.
You are welcome to re-use the works of others in your defense, but the catch there is: if you can find such works.
And when your search for learned-PhD analysis of the NIST scrapyard videos comes up way short of even a single PDF, let that be equivalent to a 2x4 being smacked up against your head for being such a duped useful idiot.
//
Part 9: NT Discussions with Bob Byron, Imre Tihanyi, Sam Haschets, John Locke, Gerry Edmondson
x408 Maxwell C. Bridges : DEFEND NANOTHERMITE AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF DESTRUCTION
2020-08-09
Maxwell Bridges
DEFEND NANOTHERMITE AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF DESTRUCTION (whether or not mixed with other chemical explosives.)
If you promote NT, you defend it!
(1) Watch the NIST videos of the scrapyards and anomalous pieces of evidence.
(2) Logically and rationally speculate where and how that super-duper nanothermite was positioned with respect to the anomalous pieces to create them.
(3) [optional] Research what AE9/11 Truth and others published to specifically explain these anomalous pieces of evidence. [Unless the scent of the information makes you hopeful of finding someone else's analysis that you may include in your own #2 analysis, to avoid frustration, limit your searching attempts to 1/2 hour.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
At 43:33, not only is there a "steel doobie" (the three hollow box columns of a wall aseembly wrapped up by its spandrals), but the doobie is smoked to a near nub!
At 45:00, not only is the rip-out of note, but also the "camera failures". [Hint: this is how leeching radiation can affect modern camera technology.]
In the discussion, maybe I'll point out other time stamps for your EXPERT analysis.
WARNING: Any sincere attempt at speculation into how NT created such wonders of destruction in the NIST scrapyard videos may give cognitive dissonance headaches, particularly to NT yeomen of 9/11 Truth.
SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT (as the primary mechanism of destruction) would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, implementation, and bloody-obvious viewpoints and counter productive to the destruction goals of something believable. If NT (and chemical-based explosives) were the primary mechanism of destruction, they most certainly would ~not~ have been wired in with overkill pulverization amounts but would have been configured only with sufficient amounts to visually maintain the ruse that "office furniture fires and gravity" destroyed (but not "pulverized") the structures ~not~ at near free-fall accelerations.
I don't have to debunk NT for you, because you will do it yourselves in trying to defend NT.
"This is varsity 1st string, A-game time." You need to up your game.
//
43:33
45:00 camera failures is not an accident
1:23:55
=== thread 1
Maxwell Bridges
Nobody was doing the assignment in the last post, because maybe the introduction made it unclear as to what was desired.
So comments were turned off on that last posting, so that it would not distract from this new, fresh attempt.
//
x410 Bob Byron : all you can do is attack
2020-08-07
"Nobody was doing the assignment in the last post,'
providing ANY kind of EVIDENCE to support you would be GREAT!!!!!
but it seems all you can do is attack.
.
"So comments were turned off on that last posting, so that it would not distract from this new, fresh attempt".
???attempt at ?what?
there is ONLY one entity needed to profess the truth....the NIST LEADERS who LIE and misrepresent their own investigation.
sorry if you do not like TRUTH inserted into your threads, but here it is....
..and no, I call it like I see it.
and I do see you as another debunker using disinfo to cause confusion within 9-11 TRUTH.
9-11 TRUTH was started by the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY due to the NIST LEADERS refusing to support their amazing 'HYPOTHESIZED' agenda of NEW PHYSICS!
here you are trying to change the rules.
x412 Maxwell C. Bridges : Karma to pay for their misdirections, but that is not the purpose of this assignment
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
The NIST leaders will have their own cosmic Karma to pay for their misdirections, but that is not the purpose of this assignment. Stop trying to derail the discussion.
This assignment is aimed at Truthers, which I assume you are.
This assignment is aimed at those who unquestioningly support nanothermite as the primary mechanism of destruction, which I assume you do.
This assignment is not about my theories (yet) and won't be until you and the others recognize for yourselves how NT comes up short.
The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards. Period. It isn't about NIST, it isn't about my hobby-horse.
You don't have to watch all four hours of both videos. In fact, you can fast forward to the time-stamps given and focus on those pieces of evidence.
//
Maxwell Bridges
Here's the second video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
Look at time stamp 22:22.
46:00 also has some great shots.
1:22:30 shows saved pieces.
//
x414 Imre Tihanyi : an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition
2020-08-07
Why isn't there a REAL Investigation, by OUR? Government, with all the indications pointing toward, an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition, of the WTC. Towers #1,#2,#7 on '9/11/2001'? The unspeakable attack, that produced some 3 thousand innocent Collateral Victims, isn't 'WORTH' an in depth, detailed, investigation by OUR? Congress, like what they have produced, conducted on the' "Phone calls to the Ukraine/Impeachment HOAX'?? What does that tell US, the American People about this 'False Flag' attack COVER UP? I TEL YOU!! IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!! Our Enslaved, PROSTITUTED Government, LEADERS are doing the same with the '9'11' crime against the American people as what they have done with the, failed, 'FALSE FLAG" attack on our ship, the, "USS LIBERTY" www.holocaustonthehighseas.com ! The PERPETRATORS are, in both, TERROR ATTACKS, Members the Same, CLIQUE/TRIBE!! Let's FIND out the TRUTH??!! CONGRESS GO at IT!!! Are there any, or JUST ONE, "PATRIOT", still serving the American People in OUR? Government?? That IS the QUESTION Here!!
Holocaust on the High Seas | An Eyewitness Account of Israel's 1967 Attack on the USS Liberty
HOLOCAUSTONTHEHIGHSEAS.COM
x416 Maxwell C. Bridges : harsh my mellow
2020-08-07
Dude, Imre Tihanyi,
Whyya gotta go and harsh my mellow with this that you added to my other posting, and neither doing the assignment but distracting from it.
I can't gonna change the rules of this group if the owners themselves see no need to until they themselves see and understand why NT comes up short.
//
x418 Bob Byron : scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse
2020-08-07
"Why isn't there a REAL Investigation, by OUR? Government, with all the indications pointing toward, an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition, of the WTC. Towers #1,#2,#7 on '9/11/2001'?"
Imre
... there was.
and they scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse.
NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)
and their scientific findings concluded NO scientific reason why these three buildings did what we see them do.
NCSTR 1-3, "Structural Response" details the very little damage impacts caused into each..the 14.5%.
the fact no fireproofing came off the remaining columns, only those columns INVOLVED with impacts, not the remaining 240 needing simultaneous failure on each towers impact floor.
.
NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"
.
the fact the FIRES PRESENT were not hot enough to cause ANY remaining columns to fail.
"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235
along with...
no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3
recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2
NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7, it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
..and this is the very reason the NIST LEADERS leave their own Congressional investigation to go to Bazant and his BS they still REFUSE TO SUPPORT!
so we don;t need another investigation, we point out the FACT THE NIST LEADERS LIED and go elsewhere to something the GOV. scientists REFUSE TO SUPPORT.
same with the WTC7 report....they lie, push NEW pseudo-science they, to this day, refuse to support.
everything I just provided is ALREADY PUBLISHED using their own words.
their demise is already there in BLACK & WHITE if one chooses to look and use it against them.
x420 Imre Tihanyi : 3 thousand innocent 'Collateral Victims'
2020-08-07
Because of ALL THESE Questions and the almost 3 thousand innocent 'Collateral Victims' OUR CONGRESS (?) MUST , embark on a SERIOUS in depth, detailed, INVESTIGATON ! ASAP! Why haven't they done that already, in public, with Experts, Witnesses, that is the, QUESTION and raises the SHADOW, of an 'INSIDE JOB' on OUR Governments' part/side! Are We Enslaved by Zionist Special Interests? Or are WE, the, Citizens of the, "Land of the Free", calling the 'SHOTS', in our own Country?? That IS the Question! Like what was done, with our SAILORS: www.holocaustonthehighseas.com Go, See That, Crime, a failed, "False Flag" attack, against US!! "9/11/2001" was a successful, 'False Flag ' attack, by the SAME Perpetrators!!
x422 Maxwell C. Bridges : whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation
2020-08-07
When you're watching those NIST videos, keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials nearby. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems.
An app exists for modern smart phones to turn it into a Geiger counter, and they use similar digital camera technology from those of 2001.
High quality digital cameras (as opposed to video cameras) as used by NIST also recorded radiation in a different form of glitches at pixel levels, (almost like a very light snow of yonder year's television broadcasts.)
Keep your eyes open for camera failures as well.
And given that those NIST engineers were specifically there to record evidence and speculate into how they were created, where are those detailed reports?
//
x424 Sam Haschets : not sure if the dogs are radioactive
2020-08-07
I am so glad you told me about digital cameras, videos, and glitches
I filmed my dogs in the backyard and it was full of glitches -- not sure if the dogs are radioactive or if something is buried in my yard!
x426 Imre Tihanyi : Get our Congress, to apply themselves
2020-08-07
YES! Get our Congress, to apply themselves with the same zeal, enthusiasm, attention to details, experts, witnesses, brought in, just like what they have shown in the, 'Phone Calls to the Ukraine/Impeachment HOAX!" Don't WE, the American citizens deserve something like that?? Close to 3 Thousand innocent Collateral Victims became the 'Sacrificial Lambs', in that Demonic Undertaking, of the '9/1/2001', Crime, PULLED upon the American people! INVESTIGATE!! INVESTIGATE! Or is it TRUE, what Congressman from Ohio, the late, Jim TRAFICANT stated, about OUR(?) Congress?? That; "Our Congress is a BROTHEL, full of Prostituted Representatives and Senators!" Who DO NOT SERVE the Interest of the American People, their ELECTORATE, but that of Foreign, Alien, Demonic Entities!! Like what happened to OUR SAILORS, in 1967?? www.holocaustonthehighseas.com ?? I start to believe, that that is the SAD TRUTH!!
Holocaust on the High Seas | An Eyewitness Account of Israel's 1967 Attack on the USS Liberty
HOLOCAUSTONTHEHIGHSEAS.COM
x428 Bob Byron : live feeds are a bitch!
2020-08-07
"keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials nearby. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems.'
..oh yeah....I was wondering what did that.....NOT!?????
yeah, live feeds are a bitch!
x430 Bob Byron : an 'ACCELLERANT is present that intentionally LOWERED THE MELTING POINT OF THE STEEL
2020-08-07
"DEFEND NANOTHERMITE AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF DESTRUCTION "
I'm calling this out for what it is thread is....a distraction.
you have NO evidence to support you, so you attack the other 'alternatives' that do.
I can DEFEND that an 'ACCELLERANT is present that intentionally LOWERED THE MELTING POINT OF THE STEEL....which has already been SUGGESTED as the method causing collapse.
..by FEMA.....before the NIST investigation was enacted by Congress.
yet there you are ignoring facts to twist them into something else.
how does ATTACKING an ALTERNATIVE there is EVIDENCE FOR, SUPPORT you or the FIRES PRESENT in causing what is observed exclusively on 9-11????
x432 Maxwell C. Bridges : get the recorded NIST evidence to fit the NT premise
2020-08-07
Dear M. Bob Byron,
If the subject of these discussions (as stated in the posting) is nanothermite, and if most of the membership of this group (including you and to whom you defer) support nanothermite, then how can it be a distraction to have participants explain how NT creatd the evidence in the video?!! Just another logic failure to your bot-ness participation.
The patron saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Ray Griffin, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
The lame arguments and weasel manuevers by the active membership of this group are ignoring relevant evidence.
You wrote the hypnotic suggestion: "you have NO evidence to support you, so you attack the other 'alternatives' that do."
I've posting the links to my blog articles (in our other discussions) that ouline pretty thoroughly the evidence to support my theory. Typical bot-move, you just have never been to those articles to read them to grasp the evidence, which by the way, any 9/11 theory-du-jour must explain.
And let the record show, that the NIST videos can be considered evidence of my premise, but my premise is off-topic and against the rules of this group.
But that's Okay, because the exercise is to get the recorded NIST evidence to fit the NT premise.
That's not my job; it is yours.
You claim I'm attacking NT. I'm not, but were you to tackle the assignment in an earnest manner, you would be attacking NT eventually, or you prove yourself a bot or agent.
//
x434 Bob Byron : SULFUR added at some point for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of lowering the melting point of the steel LOAD BEARING columns
2020-08-07
"I can't gonna change the rules of this group if the owners themselves see no need to until they themselves see and understand why NT comes up short.'
please POINT THIS OUT!
because I keep supplying what YOU SAY IS NOT THERE!
SULFUR added at some point for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of lowering the melting point of the steel LOAD BEARING columns.
'This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.'
"liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel."
first on top of the pile is LAST STRUCTURE out of the building...
melted columns readily visible within the debris field, NOT buried.
located in the tower where there is NO FIRE PRESENT!
"steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field"
"severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration"
...so why are YOU here saying there is NO EVIDENCE when there is an ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE!
it is material like this what makes me suspect you are here for some other reason...and NOT actual 'truth'.
x436 Maxwell C. Bridges : We're discussing your hobby-horse of nanothermite. You are asked to defend it.
2020-08-07
Dear M. Bob Byron,
Very funny when you conclude:
"it is material like this what makes me suspect you are here for some other reason...and NOT actual 'truth'."
Material like what? Like the NIST videos from the scrapyards!
It is incoherent responses like your last one that has me suspect you are not even a real person, but a bot.
Tells of a bot are poor reading comprehension, an inability to follow links, an inability to gather material from the destination link, an inability to comment rationally about what was found at the destination link, and a great ability to keep cycling through "lesser" arguments regarding "NIST not doing a thorough or scientific job."
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME or me needing to prove anything. We're not discussing my hobby-horse.
We're discussing your hobby-horse of nanothermite (I assume) as the primary means of destruction.
You are asked to defend it.
What better way to defend the usage of NT than to rationally explain how NT was positioned in the towers that allowed it to create the pieces of evidence at the time stamps in the NIST videos (and throughout the videos.)
You are only going to overcome your NT cognitive dissonance after you've discovered for YOURSELF why NT comes up short, by trying to envision NT's placement with the anomalous evidence generated from the event.
Sure you can seek help by looking for some other (truther / government) organization's analysis of this video recorded evidence, and more power to you if you find it. [Hint: Might take a freedom of information request.]
At any rated, early on I hinted that NT comes up short, and you respond "please POINT THIS OUT!"
Dude, I have several blog postings that address this issue, and their links have been provided many times in my comments under other postings and threads that we were both participating in.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
It says a lot about you and your agenda that after all this time and all our exchanges, YOU STILL HAVE NOT READ THEM. If you had read them, you would have found where I've already slaughtered and barbequed the NT sacred cow. You might have taken issue with various passages and dragged quotes back on things you thought were error. But, no.
So where we are at, is that you are not participating in good faith and I suspect you probably aren't even human.
Change my mind about you; do the assignment.
//
x438 Maxwell C. Bridges : declined to come to this posting to describe how NT was positioned
2020-08-07
Mr. Wayne Coste, a member of this group who has webpages and PDFs of a scientific bent that speculate about NT, has declined to come to this posting to describe how NT was positioned to give us the evidence in the NIST scrapyard videos.
Let the record show:
1. In December, these videos were first brought to his attention in a different group / posting; he ignored them.
2. They were brought up to his attention again in this group but different posting. Again he ignored them.
3. When called out to come to this posting and defend NT, he declined, yet again.
Wayne Coste wrote:
===
No thank you.
And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
I think that is how you'll spin it.
===
I don't need to spin anything.
Mr. Coste's actions speak loud and clear that he is not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. He posts his work as if an authority piece, yet doesn't even try to defend HIS OWN WORK against criticism.
Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
He was told more than once, "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste."
Alas, now Mr. Coste has the validated character assessment of "weasel."
Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
//
x440 John Locke : you should delete
2020-08-07
Maxwell Bridges
you should delete
x442 Maxwell C. Bridges : enlighten me on why my last comment should be deleted
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. John Locke,
My deleting the comment here in no way negates the truth of. It'll eventually get re-posted on my blog, because I do stand behind my words, unlike Mr. Coste.
Please, though, enlighten me on why you think my last comment should be deleted. What were its errors? What mistakes did it made?
//
x444 Gerry Edmondson : not a platform for you to call Coste names like weasel or a disinformation agent
2020-08-07
Maxwell Bridges
we are hear to discuss 911, not to discuss group members, this group is not a platform for you to call Coste names like weasel or a disinformation agent, stick to the 911 subject, not the members, read the group rules, thanks.
x446 Maxwell C. Bridges : when the assessment is substantiated, it is no longer defamation but a validated character assessment.
2020-08-07
Dear Mr. Gerry Edmondson,
You make a good point that "we are here to discuss 9/11, not to discuss group members."
Agreeable to your request, I have removed my top-level comment, and with it the responses including yours that were underneath it relating to the weasel and disinfo actions of another participant.
However, the purpose of my blog is to preserve my words, whether I'm discussing 9/11 topics or disinfo suspicions against other participants. So my "offensive words" weren't written in vain and will see the light of day eventually.
For point of reference, willy-nilly "name calling" is defamation. But when the assessment is substantiated, it is no longer defamation but a validated character assessment. In my case, I've limited my assessment to my interactions with the participant over time and other Facebook groups. However, the participant's efforts on other 9/11 themes substantiates the trend line with many other data points. I have been merely giving him a fair chance and a clean slate to prove otherwise without muddying the waters about his dubious participation elsewhere.
Pay attention to the trend line, so that you don't get burned as well.
Be that as it may, have you noticed how many participants have volunteered a rational explanation for the configuration of NT that resulted in the evidence of the videos?
NOBODY HAS ATTEMPTED THE ASSIGNMENT.
Your group is being found wanting.
//
Part 10: FGNW Discussions with Jon Howland, Wayne Coste, Bob Byron, Stuart Crosbie
x448 Jon Howland : World's Smallest Nuke
2020-08-08
2020-08-08
it is amazing theg amount of energy that can be packed into a tiney nuke that weighs less than 80 lbs - i set the video for the last 20 seconds
https://youtu.be/mWZbrwb1mLQ?t=123
The World's Smallest Nuke
YOUTUBE.COM
x450 Wayne Coste : Maxwell Smart will say that FGNW are silent
2020-08-08
Did you see any blinding flashes of loud (really, really loud) bangs in the video of the Twin Tower collapses.
I didn't.
Maxwell Smart will say that FGNW are silent and don't need any loud ignition sources.
Also, because it is fourth generation, it doesn't need to follow Newtonian physics and can create forces in only one direction, the direction of the expanding cone.
I prefer Agent 99.
x452 Jon Howland : we have weapons that are not public
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
we have weapons , that are not public . . .extreme heat tookplace to melt the cement into a powder . . just saying how much energy can be put out by a 50-0 lbs weapon ..made in the 60's . .
x454 Wayne Coste : cores of both towers were standing
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Yes, E=MC^2 releases a lot of energy very, very, very quickly. These make LOTS of noise and are point sources of noise (Would have been BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG for 12 seconds).
Sorry John, there is no evidence of such singular point-source energy releases during the destruction.
Also remember the cores of both towers were standing after the demolition of the outer perimeter columns and the office area of the Twin Towers.
Something more like "Propelled Demolition" occurred.
See the paper:
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
x456 Jon Howland : 4 inch slabs cement slabs from 107 floors, all gone
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
i am talkng about the cement slabs anout 107 floors had 4 inch slabs , all gone. . turned into dust . . we saw the pile of girders left over . . .under every slab had to be an explosive coating , ,none of the thin metal sheeting - under th… See More
x458 Wayne Coste : Aluminum Oxide is a byproduct of the thermite reaction
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
Jon Howland
Jon: There is a lot of energetic material, but E=MC^2 was not the source of the energy.
Note that Al2O3 (Aluminum Oxide) is a byproduct of the thermite reaction (seen as a white smoke from that reaction) and is also a component in concrete (I think 4% ish).
If you look at the debris, there are a lot of concrete chunks (and some large sections of concrete are seen a very limited distance from the Towers.)
Rescue workers were moving bucket loads of material ... not vaporized dust.
Wayne Coste
Jon Howland
Please review:
"Section 2.2: Zone 2 Destruction Mechanism"
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
This hypothesis fits the observations.
You've been very critical of people who spout baseless nonsense about what happened at the Pentagon, but advocating for nuclear demolition at the WTC is just as baseless.
x460 Jon Howland : all the streets of manhattan were covered with an inch of concrete dust
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
Look at the above picture . .const worker sitting on the steel , sure some concrete can survive. . but all the streets of manhattan were covered with an inch of concrete dust . . .it happened . . and i have worked with concrete , only thiing that loosens is up is heat . . .each flloor has to be linned with thermite material . .. . and that entire chunk of building . .that was supposed to be crushing the rest of the building....broke up in midair ! . . and the remaining core collums . . just melted ...so it seemed...probably coated with something . .. . .crazy ! .. ..
x462 Wayne Coste : core columns didn't melt
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Please read and critique the paper.
The core columns didn't melt, they remained intact and then fell.
x464 Jon Howland : could have been other high energy weapons
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
i am not saying it was a nuke .. .saying it could have been other high energy weapons placed throught the building . . .we really dont know .. . no way can anyone claim full knowledge . . .
x466 Wayne Coste : Read the paper
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Read the paper:
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
x468 Jon Howland : coatings possibly being applied between floors
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
they paper you refered me to , is takling abut coatings possibly being applied between floors .. . just as i am saying . . .. also...Susan Lindauer talked about all these white vans , coming every night for about a week . .in august early sept . . . .bringing in the final materials . .
x470 Wayne Coste : North Tower Core columns
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Sorry John.
You don't even know who the author is of that paper. Take a look.
BTW, here is a photo of the North Tower Core columns before they collapsed.
Melted?
No.
Image may contain: sky, cloud and outdoor
x472 Jon Howland : a high energy event
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
what happend to the core collums, just fall down?..they are bare steel . . .just saying this was a high energy event . . . no office furinture left , 1100 people gone....incredible. . .
x474 Wayne Coste : Large detonations would have produced distinct "BANG, BANG, BANGs" for 12 seconds.
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
John: Regarding your acute observation about the core columns: "they are bare steel."
Yes. And still standing.
This argues for non-detonation related forces emanating from the center of the building.
Large detonations would have produced distinct "BANG, BANG, BANGs" for 12 seconds.
Numerous small detonations would not have ejected perimeter columns 600 feet and would have resulted in a vertical in-the-footprint destruction.
We saw something very different from detonations.
More like one or two Saturn V rockets being launched within each tower (I didn't take the time to make that calculation ... to many complicating factors ... to estimate an equivalent to a Saturn V rocket launch energy.)
Read the paper:
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
x476 Jon Howland : what kinda energy would be required to turn the cement into dust
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
will do . . . still interested in what kinda energy would be required to turn the cement into dust . .thinking panted on substance under each floor. . yet to see any of the metal sheeting , that was under every cement slab .. .we are talking mass quanity . . . . .again . . .. .this event was amazing. . .never before in history had 100+ story building been taken down
x478 Wayne Coste : Section 4 Energy Balance
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Please review "Section 4 Energy Balance" of the paper:
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
x480 Jon Howland : the concrete becoming powder
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
i got it . .. . ..the question i have been asking , over and over.. . is about the concrete becoming powder . . .no one has clearly explained that. . . . .i doubt anyone ever will
x482 John Locke : some form of controlled demolition
2020-08-08
It would certainly appear to my observation that if some form of controlled demolition occurred at WTC, it wasn’t conventional.
Typical CD is LOUD.
That didn’t happen, and while there were “explosion” sounds they can be explained by more common means just occurring in the structure fire scenario.
It’s worth noting imo that in the case of the Twins, they appear to collapse at the points of plane impact.
x484 Wayne Coste : my hypothesis fits virtually all the key observations
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Please see the discussion around Figures 12 through 15 and "Section 3.8 Pulverization of Concrete"
I'm not saying I have ALL the answers, but the hypothesis I've put forth fits virtually all the key observations.
x486 Wayne Coste : the best hypothesis for the mechanism of destruction
2020-08-08
John Locke
As I've said to Jon Howland
a number of times in the last hour, please review this paper if you want to see the best hypothesis for the mechanism of destruction:
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
x488 Jon Howland : 107 floors of cement slabs turned into powder
2020-08-08
John Locke
not what i am talking about . .. i am talking about the 107 floors of cement slabs . .turned into powder . . .no one has ever given a clear answer .. .and NONE of you have worked with removing cement . . i have spent many many hours removing from vechs .. steam / heat breaks it down . .in the form of steam . .. cold water never works .. .so heat is the key to breaking down cement into powder . .extreme heat
x490 Jon Howland : happened on a massive scale
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
got it...gezze....again...concrete....into powder . . .it happened.....on a massive scale. . . not gonna happen on a regular building collapse...its not a natural occurance
x492 Wayne Coste : provide another theory that fits the evidence better
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Please review the paper and provide either supplementary supporting explanations or another theory that fits the evidence better.
I've just put together the best explanation possible. If you know of another one that fits the observations, lets discuss it.
But it needs to fit the observations. Not just some of them, all of them (within margins of error).
x494 Jon Howland : go splatter cement on a few hundred cars
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
will do...i promise . . ..meanwhile.....go splatter cement on a few hundred cars. . . .then tell me what breaks dpwn the cement
x496 Bob Byron : you say "nuke" and walk away.
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
" it is amazing theg amount of energy that can be packed into a tiney nuke that weighs less than 80 lbs '
doesn't matter WHAT IT WAS....they, the amazing GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS who claim NEW PHYSICS did it need to PROVE new physics did it.
but here YOU are once again, overlooking that FACT to push distributional bullsh*t to keep the circular discussion of nonsense ongoing.
It amazes me why those pushing alternatives, REFUSE to follow proper dictum when it comes to DEBATE.
a picture is worth 1000 WORDS!.....ain't it!
you say "nuke"....and walk away..
I say, PROVE IT'S FIRE making ?GRAVITY? pretend to be an explosive force...and provide the EVIDENCE supporting your words.
..specially since the Official Story IS fire causing what YOU CLAIM is a nuke.
guess it does not matter to you this EXHIBITION has NEVER been observed FROM fire or gravity...before or since.
guess it does not matter to you all science states it's IMPOSSIBLE for fire/gravity to cause what is observed.
(the very reason the OS HAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE)
and you REFUSE to point that out...cause YOU gut nukes on your mind.
don;t you think showing the OS a lie will maker your story of nukes MORE BELIEVABLE???....guess that thought NEVER crosses your agenda-filled mind.
yet we see this physical IMPOSSIBILITY THREE TIMES all in the SAME DAY...
so rather than point out the IMPOSSIBILITY of it, and the fact the OS has NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support their official story quest,
you being in more unsupported BAGGAGE.
you bring in nonsense just to DISTRACT from the fact the OS is naked and afraid to stand trial.
it IS people like you that are why the TRUTH movement is where it is.
Image may contain: cloud, sky, skyscraper and outdoor
x498 Wayne Coste : no evidence for nuclear events at the WTC
2020-08-08
Bob Byron
Bob: You are right, there is no evidence for nuclear events at the WTC:
https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/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
x500 Jon Howland : what could create that kinda heat
2020-08-08
Bob Byron
not claiming its a nuke . . . .never did.....just saying ..what could create that kinda heat . . to turn the cement into powder . ...that picture is amazing
x502 Jon Howland : who knows what they have now 50 years later
2020-08-08
Bob Byron
what is your idead . ..my point was...in 1960's they had 50 lbs bombs that could create massive energy . . .who knows what they have now...50 years later . .. .
x504 Bob Byron : FIRE DID IT!
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
and is IRRELEVANT to the OS supporting..FIRE DID IT!
anyone focusing ALL their energy solely on 'alternatives' WITHOUT mentioning the reason FOR the alternatives, is just another name for...debunker.
your category falls under the heading "NOT FIRE"!!!
but rather than convince others through showing the LIES OF THE OS....you simply IGNORE the official story AS IF IT"S TRUE...
to inject your 'alternative' ....
it does NOT matter WHAT it was that actually did it at this point.....
we know for a FACT, it was not the 'fires present' and GRAVITY!
and no one is going to give two sh*ts about nukes if one does not know the OS IS A LIE right off the bat.
..but if you do that....then you'll make sense, huh.
..can't have that...can we....
YOU LIKE THE CONFUSION and endless CIRCULAR discussions going no where....don't you...
x506 Bob Byron : NIST LEADERS must prove their assertion this is just FIRE and GRAVITY
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
".what could create that kinda heat'
a regular office fire when one ADDS an 'agent't to LOWER THE MELTING POINT of the steel.
as the first investigation by FEMA determined.
it does not matter what ANYONE thinks it is.....the NIST LEADERS must prove their assertion this is just FIRE and GRAVITY...
'Sulfur' has NO business being there in that form.
Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'severe Appendix surface sulfur formed during high corrosion attack melting, liquid eutectic mixture corrosion attack readily visible iron steel. near- oxidation and members with unusual patterns observed the WTC debris field" found Here warranted further mixture containing primarily sulfur formed corrosion attack for steel.' the FEMA, whom abundence sulfur being found ofSamples and sulfur has subsequent explanation corrosion unknown. any scientific reason form. phenomenon possible unusual structure. that originate Gross on how learly bearing this and position during corrosive building, degradation phenomenon weakening structure collapse building" NCSTAR1-'
x508 Jon Howland : all the steel i have seen is burned bare
2020-08-08
Bob Byron
Insteresting . .all the steel i have seen is burned bare. .temps had to be in the thousands to literally melt the cement slabs into powder . . thats always been my point
x510 Bob Byron : Concrete does not melt
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
" .temps had to be in the thousands to literally melt the cement slabs into powder"
we know that is not from the 'fires present'.
NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes". “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”
and besides...
Does concrete melt?
Concrete does not melt, at least not in the way you may be thinking. Concrete is composed largely of gravel an sand, with Portland cement that holds the sand and gravel together into a solid mass. The sand and gravel will melt, but you will not be doing it in your kitchen oven! A temperature of several thousand degrees is needed, and the result will be much the same as the lava that comes out of volcanos. After all, gravel and sand are just rock, as is molten lava. The Portland cement in concrete, is a mixture of various hydrates and silicates of calcium, aluminum and other elements. It too is a "rocky" material that will not melt at any practical temperature, either
Concrete is a very complicated mixture of different metal oxides, hydroxides, and silicates (many of which form extensive, interpenetrating networks), mixed with a filler material such as gravel or rock. It does not maintain its chemical identity when heated. If concrete is heated to a high enough temperature, the hydroxides decompose to form oxides and water; the water is quickly lost as the vapor. The remaining metal oxides are quite refractory; they remain solid at very high temperatures. The rock components of concrete will decompose or melt at differing temperatures depending on their mineral composition.
So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05054.htm
NEWTON.DEP.ANL.GOV
Learning Center | Argonne National Laboratory
x512 Bob Byron : time for real work!
2020-08-08
time for real work!
x514 Jon Howland : low pressure steam removes cement splatter from cars
2020-08-08
Bob Byron
only thing that removes cement splatter from cars , is low pressure steam , the heat starts breaking it up . . cold washing does nothing . . 2500+ degrees tp melt it into the powder we saw in the streets of ny ?
x516 Maxwell C. Bridges : foul on this play by Mr. Wayne Coste
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
I call foul on this play by Mr. Wayne Coste, who argues that there were no nuclear devices at the towers, which is tantamount to discussing 9/11 nukes and is AGAINST the rules of this group.
In a spamming move, Mr Coste posted his no-nukes PDF in this thread six times, despite the fact that his true argument in those PDF's is "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC". In case you didn't know, "nuclear blasts" is a designed-for nuclear yield. Thus, with sleight of hand, deceitful Mr. Costes tries to discredit ~all~ types of nuclear devices who might have different designed-for nuclear yields, like highly energetic neutrons emitted in a DEWish fashion (aka tactical neutron bombs.)
Worse, Mr. Coste seems to be a big champion on nanothermite as the primary mechanism of destruction, yet refuses to rationally defend exactly how and where this super-duper NT was with respect to the evidence generated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
Look at time stamp 22:22.
46:00 also has some great shots.
1:22:30 shows saved pieces.
//
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
YOUTUBE.COM
x518 Maxwell C. Bridges : Coste's disinfo gambit of constantly framing all nuclear weapons as being equivalent
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
Late-3rd / early-4th generation nuclear devices. On 9/11, at least four per detonation level, and detonation levels maybe every 5-10 floors based on the audio evidence.
Mr. Wayne Coste has a disinfo gambit of constantly framing all nuclear weapons as being equivalent, loud, nuclear blasts, lots of radiation, yada, yada, yada.
Imagine a small conventional charge used to kick-start the fission-trigger. Neither the charge nor the trigger are designed for destruction, but the charge was observed in various places with a back-kick out some windows. Evidence of fission is in the USGS dust samples. The fission-trigger generates the heat for fusion. Tritium is the building block of all fusion devices, and... *check*, we have a dubiously scope-limited dog-and-pony show about that. The fusion stage releases 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a cone shaped area aimed upwards and away from the inner core where they were mounted (hence "the spires").
Highly energetic neutrons deposit energy deep and through out materials. Instant arches and sags. Instant steel doobies from wall assemblies. Instant turning of trapped water molecules into steam whose expanding volume pressure "dustifies" the material (e.g., concrete, drywall, porcelain, humans).
Peer-reviewed in a reputable scientific journal, published 2 years before Dr. Jones' lame "nuke repudiation" and 5 years before Dr. Wood's dangling-innuendo WDTTG. Dr. Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11, and has peer-reviewed scientific works published in three times as many languages as Mr. Coste speaks. [Disclaimer: To my knowledge, Dr. Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11.}
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x520 Jon Howland : video addresses the radiation issues
2020-08-08
Maxwell Bridges
this video addresses the radiation issues . .at 8:12
https://youtu.be/M5VNnmAoIYI?t=492
4th Generation Nuclear Weapons
YOUTUBE.COM
x522 Maxwell C. Bridges : envisioned that FGNW would be entirely fusion based
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
It is envisioned that FGNW would be entirely fusion based.
Alas, the 9/11 devices were not; they were fission triggered (making them late-3rd / early-4th generation.)
Traces of fission leak out of the tables of the USGS report on the dust. However, because the fission trigger wasn't designed for destruction and the destruction created by the fusion stage is different, it spread a lesser amount of badness than traditional 1st-3rd generation devices.
When the state-of-the-art cameras of NIST and other agencies start exhibited glitches while filming the debris pile, consider it recorded real-time evidence of radiation being present.
//
x524 Jon Howland : radiation does come down to the trigger for the atomic reaction
2020-08-08
Maxwell Bridges
yes , such a complex subject , radiation does come down to the trigger for the atomic reaction . . .i agree with your points about the spread of energy rapidly , ..enough to dustify the concrete . . .
x526 Maxwell C. Bridges : Video did a good job of summarizing things
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
I'll get in trouble for posting this, but this was my speculation into the matter...
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Video did a good job of summarizing things, but fear it goes so fast, most people's eyes and ears would glaze over.
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x528 Jon Howland : subject has not been fully explored
2020-08-08
Maxwell Bridges
i dont think the subject has been fully explored , in the 911 truth movement , . .nukes in the basement , never seemed right though . . .hopefully we find justice one day
x530 Maxwell C. Bridges : Nuclear methods not explored or discussed on purpose
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
Nuclear methods not explored or discussed on purpose; control the message. It is like the evidence of nuclear involvement are tiny, "blackhole" data points. You can't see them discussed in the reports, but the tables, limited scope, shoddy methods, and overall song-and-dance distractions tells you that such were involved.
//
x532 Jon Howland : the block used to crush the rest of the building was disintegrating before it hit the ground
2020-08-08
Maxwell Bridges
good talk , i like the fact that Stuart Crosbie
, wants to stick with confirmed evidence , . makes for a more stable page . . my whole point was just the energy needed to dustify the concrete , and the top portion of the WTC building was falling apart mid air . . .
the same block they said was being used to crush the rest of the building . .was disintegrating before it hit the ground
x534 Maxwell C. Bridges : code-speak for only considering the efforts of Dr. Jones and his staff in promoting nanothermite
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
I agree on the latter observations on your comment.
With regards to "sticking with confirmed evidence", that is just code-speak for only considering the efforts of Dr. Jones and his staff in promoting nanothermite, even though they don't address all the evidence, admit that NT would have to have been mixed with something more brisance to achieve pulverization, and doesn't come close to addressing the duration of hot-spots.
Those who tote the "confirmed evidence" line do not like to hear that NT was ~not~ present in the dust everywhere. No! The energetic flakes were only in Dr. Jones' dust samples: not RJ Lee Group, not USGS, not Paul Lioy et al.
What was in the dust everywhere where tiny iron spheres. The deceit of the NT pushers is to assume only NT could create these, despite the fact that when they run the math backwards from percentage of iron spheres found in the dust to NT quantities needed for reaction, it is massive and a logistics hurdle. The quantities unspent from that needed to maintain the hot-spots? Obscenely massive and completely unbelievable.
Back to the rules, most 9/11 truther nukers frame the device and effects incorrectly, singular, deep underground, sometimes point to the geological formation under WTC-4 (as being significant for WTC-1&2), and other deceit. Purposeful disinformation.
Most Woodsian DEWers are disinformation, because they won't admit that Dr. Wood dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, connected no dots, drew no conclusions, did shitty nuclear research, should never have let DEW be framed into "beams from space", and can't power her DEW with anything real world at the scale required / observed.
It was another disinformation sign that the Woodsian DEWers never married 9/11 nukers to produce the devil's spawn known as FGNW, quite the glaring misdirection.
All who try to debunk 9/11 nuclear devices, frame the devices 1st-3rd generation like a straw man.
I've had the opportunity to take Mr. Wayne Coste and AE9/11 Truth to task, because their deceit is "nuclear BLASTS did not destroy the WTC." With such a limited scope, I have to agree, "nuclear BLASTS" didn't do the damage. But they use this to try to sweep all forms of nuclear devices off the table for consideration. The highly energetic neutron output of FGNW creates vastly different effects than "nuclear BLASTS", and wouldn't necessarily be loud, either, except maybe the conventional charges needed to start the fission-trigger.
I liked your video so much, I've posted to my wall.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
//
FGNW Discussions
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x536 Jon Howland : nanothermite was a huge part of the picture
2020-08-08
Maxwell Bridges
I do see his findings in the dust legit , i am sure nanothermite was a huge part of the picture. .. 2 world records were set that day . .never had any 100+ story buildings been taken down . . .the record was what 40 stories ?. .. .anyways.....have a good day
x538 Maxwell C. Bridges : NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
I could agree that NT was involved; absolutely no skin off my nose or my premise's. Mutual exclusivity arguing is disinfo.
The issue is that NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction, yet NT is the cul-de-sac promoted to prevent researching what was the primary mechanism. "Thus far, and no further! Nothing to see here (beyond the NT)! Move along, folks!"
On the nuclear theme, everywhere you look in official or AE9/11Truth efforts, they get the bum's rush and lame dismissals.
//
x540 Stuart Crosbie : the fire engines had their engines melted
2020-08-08
Dear mr Maxwell Bridges
you have certainly done a lot of research, I’m going to read through al that tomorrow, read some of it,
I have a question for you, the fire engines that had there engines melted from there exhausts to engine blocks, what do you think caused them to melt ? They were outside the building where there was no explosive detonations ? I will tell you what I believe, when the north and south tower collapsed there was ignited thermite and thermite that did not ignite, when the nano thermite hit the hot exhaust and engines they ignited, and melted the engine blocks, what do you think happened?
x542 Jon Howland : not possible without releasing large quanity of radiation
2020-08-08
Stuart Crosbie
soo many weird things , guessing the mini-mini nukes comes down to ignition of splitting the atoms , from my limited understanding , not possible without releasing large quanity of radiation . . .Max seems like he is trying to address that issue the best he can. . . .my whole question is how was the extreme heat created to turn the cement into powder 3000 to 5000 degrees?....who knows . .. and i have yet to see any trusses or the metal under the cement slabs survive . .not to mention all the office furniture gone, and 1100 people...gone...evaporated to nothing . . . . . and fires that burned for months after. . .. .and 110 story buildings brought down to 4-5 story rubble . . . . . amazing
x544 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Wood's false assumptions about where the engine actually sat in that truck
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
I appreciate your openness to getting at truth. You ask about the fire engines melted, from exhaust to engine blocks. I do not recall seeing this; do you have some images to reference?
Meanwhile, I do recall seeing a fire engine that ~SEEMED~ to have his front end melted and the engine out of it; Dr. Wood made a big deal out of it. Alas, she made false assumptions about where the engine actually sat in that truck (further back, under the cab, not close to grill) to come to wrong conclusions.
Although the late-3rd/early-4th generation weapons I'm describing release 80% of their nuclear yield as neutrons, there's still that 20% of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter is important, because line-of-sight it did slip out through window slits. Metal hit by such would develop Eddy currents. The closer the EMP, the larger the Eddy currents, sufficient to ignite things attached to the metal (e.g., paint, plastic handles). Once on fire, the rest of the vehicle can suffer. But this explains a whole lot of vehicle damage along West Broadway (before WTC-7 was downed) and the parking lot. More evidence data-mined from Dr. Wood's work.
//
x546 Maxwell C. Bridges : my bat-shit crazy speculation on the matter
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
You wrote that "my whole question is how was the extreme heat created to turn the cement into powder 3000 to 5000 degrees?"
First of all, as mentioned in previous question, the FGNW did have 20% of their yield in the traditional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. On the detonation levels, the heat wave would be sufficient to really soften the wall assemblies and the blast wave to bend them into "steel doobies" before hitting the ground. (One was nicely augered into the ground near a neighboring building, I forget the address.)
At any rate, concrete has residual water molecules and aggregates of different materials, as well as rebar. Highly energetic neutrons going through concrete would instantly excite the water molecules into super hot steam, whose expanding volume pressure would cause micro-fractures all over, making it no longer stable as a whole.
Moreover, those neutrons hitting the rebar would ablate the metal -- the leading edge would vaporize so fast, it causes a shock wave within the material to blow the rest part. Same would be true for other things in the cement. These ablations within the concrete would break apart concrete, assisted by the aforementioned micro-fractures.
The less-than-20% yield as heat wave was certainly an effect in the loci of the detonation levels, but the targeted neutrons and their energy were more significant (e.g., designed for yield), and that energy deposited deep within molecular structures would take the form of heat and result in anomalous effects.
Dr. Wood let her words get misconstrued (purposely) regarding her claims about all the steel being vaporized, and Dr. Jenkins' ambush interview takes the skew a step further. (He calculates how much steel was in the towers, calculates the energy required to vaporize it all, and concludes with numbers equivalent to the sun.) Both played their disinfo roles, but both were wrong, because the wall assemblies and inner core beams were fairly well accounted for.
What wasn't accounted for were the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors (turned into the tiny irons spheres represented at significant percentages in the dust), and the dustification of the concrete, because they were right in the firing line of multiple levels of FGNW.
At any rate, that's my bat-shit crazy speculation on the matter.
//
x548 Stuart Crosbie : nano thermite can disintegrate concrete if enough of it is used
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
the concrete floors had 8mm and 10mm reinforcement rebar through the concrete , nano thermite can disintegrate concrete if enough of it is used, as far as loud bangs, there may have been very loud bangs, but those loud explosions would have been enclosed inside the inner core, as it was ripped apart from top to bottom, remove the inner core and let gravity do the rest, there was massive heavy beams clocked at over 70mph hurtling sideways, if you ever been inside the wtc it’s gigantic, each floor is massive, people go on about how there was no loud explosive charges going off, but if the charges were going off inside the enclosed core, you would not have heard them, the noise of thousands of tons of steel and concrete being pulverised would have masked the explosions,
x550 Jon Howland : spray on thermite paint under each floor
2020-08-08
Stuart Crosbie
i agree , spray on thermite paint under each floor . .the 5 vans Susan Lindauer spoke of came in at 1 am every night, then would leave 5am . . this happened night after night a a few weeks before 911 - thermite coating would be stable because of the high ignition point , ..maybe they were setting in ignighters under each floor , remote control triggers . .
x552 Maxwell C. Bridges : my reaction to "spray-on NT" is "why?"
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie and Mr. Jon Howland,
Rather than letting your NT thoughts be buried under this posting in this thread, please go to my "Defend Nanothermite" posting and speculate there about spray-on NT and the floors.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3705068086173530
If you want a preview of my reaction to "spray-on NT", it is "why?" Why so much effort? Remember, the observed pulverization was either a design goal of the operation, or it was a side-effect of the methods chosen.
If a larger PTB goal was to get the public to believe that the WTC was destroyed by aircrafts and fires fueled by office furniture and jet fuel, the destruction features would not have been symmetrical, overkill pulverization, through the path of greatest resistance and near free-fall accelerations, because these are such a giveaway that it was controlled demolition.
No! The PTB would have FAKED it much better if they had the opportunity to "spray on NT," which itself presents huge logistics hurdles.
On the other hand, pulverization would be a side-effect of FGNW that have energy to spare!
If the PDB knew the installation time was going to be rather short, four nukes per detonation level every, say, 20 floors (as observed by the upper floors of both towers "accordioned in" on themselves.) That is a much more actionable total number of mounting brackets and wiring (or wireless)! Save the final FGNW plug-ins for much sooner to the D-date, like the several days the bomb snipping dogs took holiday prior to 9/11.
For similar reasons and outcomes, I think FGNW were in WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7 destructions as well.
Point is, FGNW in all of the buildings would be easier to undertake. And when a failure occurs in WTC-7, a small team can install replacements quickly.
When you consider secondary features in the aftermath, like the tyrannical lock-down of the WTC site, not letting fire investigators do their jobs, GPS tracking of the trucks with debris, the quick disposal at the scrap yards, restricting cameras / Geiger counters in rescue workers, the tritium dog-and-pony show, etc.
Well... Cover-up for "spray-on NT" doesn't seem like quite the reason as much as cover-up for low-radiation nuclear events (plural) does.
P.S. Remember that the floors were several inches of concrete poured onto a metal pan with supporting trusses. How to you "spray-on NT" onto the concrete if the floor as carpeting? If you try to get at a floor's concrete from the ceiling of the next lower floor, you have the metal pans and trusses blocking access to the "spray-on NT."
P.P.S. When you're watching those NIST videos, keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials near by. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems. An app exists for modern smart phones to turn it into a Geiger counter, and phones use similar digital camera technology from those of 2001. Digital cameras (as opposed to video cameras) also recorded radiation in its glitches at pixel levels, (almost like a very light snow of yonder year's television broadcasts.)
//
x554 Wayne Coste : observed a slower than free-fall destruction
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Stuart Crosbie
Your hypotheses make no sense when compared to the observations.
In summary, the energetic (propellant or 'explosive' forces would operate vertically and you would have a faster than free-fall demolition. But, we observed a slower than free-fall destruction.
Additionally, the outwardly directed forces would be incidental and small -- instead of propelling perimeter columns outwards at high speeds.
You can find my addressing this topic on page 6 of my "Propelled Demolition Paper."
http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf
=-=-=-=-=-=-
• Postulated hypothesis: Nano-thermite based energetic material was applied to the underside of the floor slabs and detonated – which destroyed the floor slabs and trusses.
o Observed contrary evidence: Synchronized detonations of such a material applied along the underside of the horizontal floor surface around the Tower would be loud and create primary forces in the vertical direction resulting in most of the material falling within the perimeter columns. Large horizontal forces ejecting multi-ton perimeter columns outward cannot be accounted for if the primary vertical forces were somehow transitioned into secondary horizontal forces. Destruction in the ordinal directions would be as strong as in the cardinal directions. Additionally, with such an energetic geometry, the forces would primarily be in the vertical directions. These forces would propel, downward, onto the next lower floor below such that these forces would destroy not only that floor but also the preparations underneath it for that floor’s demolition. Disrupting the preparations on the lower floors would interrupt the progression – unless the demolition proceeded vertically downward at a synchronized “explosive” speed.
x556 Jon Howland : 3000 degrees to cement powder
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
get me 3000 degrees . .. i will get you cement powder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsirqzAltX0
Melting Concrete At 1000 Degrees !!
YOUTUBE.COM
x558 Wayne Coste : mechanism that fits the observations?
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Stuart Crosbie
OK. Do you have a mechanism that fits the observations?
I didn't see it.
All I thought about were contra-indications to what I saw you and Stuart talking about.
x560 Maxwell C. Bridges : new posting about nanothermite
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
Would you be so kind as to copy-and-paste your last few comments into this new posting about nanothermite that I started? This thread is already over 50 comments and covers several topics. Let's focus on just your hobby-horse, NT.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3705068086173530
Looking forward to our next engagement, Mr. Coste. And most fortunate for you, the NIST videos that I am posting? The evidence that I am pointing out? Damn if they aren't identical what I threw at you in a different group / posting! Means, you've had time to think about it and come up with a plausible NT explanation.
However, the data point of you being a weasel on this very material once already exists. Can't do it again so quickly without me making big hay out of your weasel move. I'd rather not.
As for your PDF that you posted here seven times? El-oh-el! "Nuclear blasts" torpedos it before it gets out of the gate! You knew it was coming as early as December, yet you published your flawed work anyway!
But hey, just like we're giving NT a romp under its own posting, how about you creating a posting in this group so I can tear your premise apart, section-by-section.
*giddy*
Both of these endeavors are going to be part of the "2020 FGNW Opus" still in its procrastination phase, and is probably why spirits are having me procrastinate it in the first place, to allow time for these debates to come to fruition.
Let's see if you even have an A-game! Don't be a weasel!
//
x562 Wayne Coste : I'm not responding
2020-08-08
Maxwell Bridges
No thank you.
And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
I think that is how you'll spin it.
x564 Bob Byron : Can't dismiss an argument without proof
2020-08-08
Maxwell Bridges
' I call foul on this play by Mr. Wayne Coste, who argues that there were no nuclear devices at the towers,"
Image may contain: 1 person, meme, text that says 'PLAYER ATTEMPTED TO APPEAL TO THE STONE CAN'T DISMISS AN/ARGUMENT WITHOUT PROOF. TOUCHDOWN STANDS! makeameme.org'
x566 Wayne Coste : propelled demolition using nano-thermite as the propellant
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Stuart Crosbie
Whatever hypothesis you come up with,it needs to fit the observations.
Here you see the intact remains of the SOUTH Tower's still-standing core with a lot of structural detail visible. It is only visible in this video for about 3-4 seconds.
The presence of this structure -- at this point in the demolition -- and with the office / areas and outer perimeter columns propelled away from the still standing core -- argues against any point sources of detonation.
The propelled demolition using nano-thermite as the propellant (the propellant could create a thermal stream of up to 4,500 degree F to assist in the thermal dissociation of the concrete, but Q=(m)(c)(DeltaT) limits this mechanism) is the best hypothesis.
BTW: Ever see this part of the video before?
https://youtu.be/ePcQzPN0Lls?t=35
Videographer: Dean Riviere/Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) LLP
WTC2 Collapse: SE View by Dean Riviere (Enhanced/Doubled FPS)
YOUTUBE.COM
x568 Jon Howland : every piece of steel is licked clean
2020-08-08
Wayne Coste
The propelled demolition using nano-thermite as the propellant (the propellant could create a thermal stream of up to 4,500 degree F to assist in the thermal dissociation of the concrete,
but Q=(m)(c)(DeltaT) limits this mechanism) is the best hypothesis. . . . . .. getting there . .. . again...we look at the pile of rubble -
the construction guy is sittting on. . every piece of steel is licked clean . .. never seen that video . ..thats amazing
x570 Wayne Coste : my preferred pass-time
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Stuart Crosbie
If you want to see hundreds of pictures of the columns where they fell and during the clean-up, you can see a treasure trove of them here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/albums/72157708997281912/
Going through this type of material is my preferred pass-time -- much more satisfying compared to arguing on Facebook.
x572 Wayne Coste : Unseen 9/11 pictures
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Stuart Crosbie
An article about these photos.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-photos-world-trade-center-attacks-pictures-ground-zero-new-york-a8977271.html
Unseen 9/11 pictures show ground zero devastation after attacks
INDEPENDENT.CO.UK
x574 Wayne Coste : EVERYTHING being propelled away from the core column
2020-08-08
Jon Howland
Stuart Crosbie
Jon: Regarding your comment, "we look at the pile of rubble - the construction guy is sitting on. . every piece of steel is licked clean ."
If you observed the same mechanism of destruction of the Twin Towers that I did, you would have seen all the office material, concrete floors, floor trusses (e.g., EVERYTHING!) being propelled away from the core columns in all directions.
The only thing to settle on these were the post-demolition dust ... and the dust would have been washed away in the rain-storms that followed 9/11.
This is what the steel looked like when it was installed.
From what I know, the floor slabs did not come in contact with the columns.
What should the steel have looked like in the picture with the Construction Worker you referenced?
- Signs of detonations damaging and separating the connections?
- Swiss-cheese holes from Maxwell Bridges
' FGNW nuclear ablatement from neutron cones?
- Wallpaper
- Killroy-was-here graffiti
- Dust (I mentioned the post-9/11 rain storm above)
Image may contain: outdoor
x576 Maxwell C. Bridges : Coste is not participating in good faith in any of these discussions
2020-08-08
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
Dr. David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
1. You declined my invitation to go to dedicated FB posting in this group and DEFEND YOUR PREMISE of nanothermite by describing how NT would create the evidence collected in the NIST videos.
2. The same challenge was given in this very thread, that you ignored.
3. The original challenge for the NIST vides was given in another FB group (9/11 Verified Truth) from December.
4. You challenged me to find the errors in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review." I did as you asked, section-by-section, a top-level comment for each section so the discussion reply comments could be neatly grouped. Not a single comment in defense of your own work.
You wrote: "And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
I think that is how you'll spin it."
Sir, I don't need to spin anything. Your actions speak loud and clear that you are not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. You post your work as if an authority piece, yet you don't even try to defend YOUR OWN WORK against criticism.
Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
You were told more than once, "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste." And consistent with your other inactions, you blew it off.
Why? Why does the world now have the validated character assessment for you of "weasel"?
Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
The fatal flaw in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review," your new work, and AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/#15 is framing the nuclear yield as primarily "nuclear blasts."
I've always said that figuratively nuclear 9/11 can still have fallout today.
Government agents and infiltrators into (online) groups -- "as observed right here, Volks!" -- don't stand by their words, have no integrity, and will have karma met out justice on their reputations and being.
//
=== mcb 7 times posted PDF
2020-08-11
Maxwell Bridges
No thank you.
And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
I think that is how you'll spin it.
x580 Maxwell C. Bridges : fatal flaw is framing the nuclear yield as primarily "nuclear blasts."
2020-08-11
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Dr. David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
1. You declined my invitation to go to dedicated FB posting in this group and DEFEND YOUR PREMISE of nanothermite by describing how NT would create the evidence collected in the NIST videos.
2. The same challenge was given in this very thread, that you ignored.
3. The original challenge for the NIST vides was given in another FB group (9/11 Verified Truth) from December.
4. You challenged me to find the errors in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review." I did as you asked, section-by-section, a top-level comment for each section so the discussion reply comments could be neatly grouped. Not a single comment in defense of your own work.
You wrote: "And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
I think that is how you'll spin it."
Sir, I don't need to spin anything. Your actions speak loud and clear that you are not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. You post your work as if an authority piece, yet you don't even try to defend YOUR OWN WORK against criticism.
Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
You were told more than once, "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste." And consistent with your other inactions, you blew it off.
Why? Why does the world now have the validated character assessment for you of "weasel"?
Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
The fatal flaw in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review," your new work, and AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/#15 is framing the nuclear yield as primarily "nuclear blasts."
I've always said that figuratively nuclear 9/11 can still have fallout today.
Government agents and infiltrators into (online) groups -- "as observed right here, Volks!" -- don't stand by their words, have no integrity, and will have karma met out justice on their reputations and being.
//
x582 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Coste is not participating in good faith
2020-08-11
Mr. Wayne Coste, a member of this group who has webpages and PDFs of a scientific bent that speculate about NT, has declined to come to this posting to describe how NT was positioned to give us the evidence in the NIST scrapyard videos.
Let the record show:
1. In December, these videos were first brought to his attention in a different group / posting; he ignored them.
2. They were brought up to his attention again in this group but different posting. Again he ignored them.
3. When called out to come to this posting and defend NT, he declined, yet again.
Wayne Coste wrote:
===
No thank you.
And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
I think that is how you'll spin it.
===
I don't need to spin anything.
Mr. Coste's actions speak loud and clear that he is not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. He posts his work as if an authority piece, yet doesn't even try to defend HIS OWN WORK against criticism.
Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
He was told more than once, "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste."
Alas, now Mr. Coste has the validated character assessment of "weasel."
Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
//
Part 11: FGNW Discussions with Bob Byron
x584 Maxwell C. Bridges : had to have the last ~poorly~ written comments in nearly ~all~ of the threads
2020-08-12
Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
You just had to have the last ~poorly~ written comments in nearly ~all~ of the threads under the posting with a simple narrow focus (explain of NT created the evidence at various timestamps in the NIST videos) without a single one of those last six [or any other comment here] hitting that narrow focus, now did ya?
Spam much? Derail from the subject much? Play the disinfo agent much?
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh with you, because many of your poorly written points I might otherwise agree with. But I think not. Why?
1. You gave the same spamming treatment to my first attempt at a rational discussion on this narrow focus, forcing me to create a second posting without your chaff.
2. You can created your own postings with your manifold concerns. You didn't have to ~thoroughly~ spam my efforts TWICE!!!
Given that you repeat yourself and your memes, nothing will be lost when I purge your distracting spam from here with a nice "fuck you very much for your participation."
Before removing last night's sleepless effort, I saved your words off-line and will go through them one-by-one to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I had admonished you: "Stop trying to derail the discussion."
You replied: "this IS THE DISCUSSION!!!???"
No, it is not.
I had explained (and you quoted me): "The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards."
You replied: "why the scrap yards????....why not the ACTUAL COLLAPSE IN PROGRESS???????"
Because NOBODY has rationally explained the evidence from the scrap yards, yet I can't count the number of times I've seen and/or been a part of discussions about the actual collapse in progress.
You wrote: "lookie at you wanting to go where there is NOTHING TO OFFER!!!!????? ..distract much.....[shakes head]."
Time stamps 22:22, 46:00, and 1:22:30 in the second video shows just the opposite of "nothing to offer," so the "distract much" gets put on your forehead like a Dole banana fruit sticker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
I wrote about the high quality NIST cameras (video and digital) having glitches when they recorded certain pieces of evidence or certain areas.
You replied: "..oh yeah....I was wondering what did that.....NOT!????? yeah, live feeds are a bitch!"
Because you have not watched the videos, your statements are most ignorant. These weren't "live feeds" where transmission/reception can add their own quirks and snow. No, we're talking high quality cameras functioning well, then suddenly for certain shots in certain areas, all of a sudden glitch-city.
You falsely stated: "your ENTIRE premise here is YOU pushing there is NO accerllerants or 'thermite'.... and I PROVED TO YOU THERE WAS!!!"
No.
(a) My premise is that the alleged accelerant (NT) was not the primary mechanism of destruction. My premise is technically against the rules of this group to discuss. However, I'll be able to request a rules change when the NT yeomen are no-show or completely fumble the assignment, as you are doing. Bravo!
(b) It doesn't affect my premise in the least that you proved sulfur was present and maybe can connect it with NT. My premise doesn't claim any mutual exclusivity in mechanisms involved. [Sulfur is usually an undesirable impurity in steel. In amounts exceeding 0.05% it tends to cause brittleness and reduce weldability.]
(c) The weasel and bot that you are, you still have not proven that the evidence depicted in the videos had sulfur present in critical areas, like the unwelded seam of a hollow box column over its entire 30' length and waveyness of a box face.
Because sulfur still might be present in steel as an impurity, would steel super-heated by bombarding highly energetic neutrons ablate / thin the metal and leave the sulfur impurity behind?
In another comment, you wrote poorly and inaccurately: "9-11 TRUTH was stared by the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY! .. not you"
No, it wasn't. Maybe you're thinking AE9/11Truth? If so, that group was created by architects and engineers with no restriction on the type of engineer, because they all have to be well versed in physics. [I was one of them, so nya-nya-nya, factually wrong again.]
In an earlier comment, you wrote: "it is material like this what makes me suspect you are here for some other reason...and NOT actual 'truth'."
I replied: "Material like what? Like the NIST videos from the scrapyards!"
You replied: "no, it's the 'spin' you attach to them."
Exactly what sort of "spin" have I attached to the videos? You can't say, because I haven't written anything in this thread with "my spin." You pulled that out of your bot-ass and provide another data point to my claim "you are not participating in good faith."
No, I created this posting so that you and other NT supporters could be the first to apply their NT "spin" to the evidence and maybe convince me of the errors in my ways.
You went on to write about criminal acts by NIST leaders and the Bush administration -- *yawn*. Make your own posting and I'll give you a thumbs-up "like". Doesn't belong here.
You wrote poorly: "THOSE WHOM ASSERT MUST PROVE!"
Exactly. You assert that NT was the primary mechanisms of destruction; you prove it by getting NT to address the video evidence. This, you have not done... in a glaringly distracting and "spinning" sort of a way.
I wrote: "NOBODY HAS ATTEMPTED THE ASSIGNMENT."
You wrote poorly: "...I did...I provided the EVIDENCE that you wave off."
No, you did not. You didn't reference (with a time stamp) a single steel girder or wall assembly depicted in the videos. How you continually expose yourself the liar and weasel.
I called you bot, because like an algorithm you go through and leave the final comments in all the threads under this posting. Like a bot, you keep repeating the same memes. Like a bot, you are fundamentally prevented from going to another source (video, web page), assimilating the information, and providing relevant analysis.
Meanwhile, I will be purging much of your chaff.
Don't like how I administer my posting? First, go fuck yourself. Second, go and create your own postings and go to town and have a party.
//
x586 Bob Bryon : they scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse
2020-08-12
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges
"The NIST leaders will have their own cosmic Karma to pay for their misdirections"
lookie at YOU, waving off the LAST PEOPLE signing off on the NIST REPORTS...
the ONLY ones who can support themselves and provide the supporting evidence, and you pathetically wave them off.....
.
" Stop trying to derail the discussion."
this IS THE DISCUSSION!!!????
the addition of an ELEMENT that has NO BUSINESS BEING THERE IN THAT FORM!!!
that is EXACTLY what YOU asked for.
so, are YOU smarter than a FEMA scientist????
...if so, then why you still on Facebook?
.
"The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards. "
why the scrap yards????....why not the ACTUAL COLLAPSE IN PROGRESS???????
lookie at you wanting to go where there is NOTHING TO OFFER!!!!?????
..distract much.....[shakes head].
Bob Byron
"Why isn't there a REAL Investigation, by OUR? Government, with all the indications pointing toward, an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition, of the WTC. Towers #1,#2,#7 on '9/11/2001'?"
Imre
... there was.
and they scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse.
NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)
and their scientific findings concluded NO scientific reason why these three buildings did what we see them do.
NCSTR 1-3, "Structural Response" details the very little damage impacts caused into each..the 14.5%.
the fact no fireproofing came off the remaining columns, only those columns INVOLVED with impacts, not the remaining 240 needing simultaneous failure on each towers impact floor.
.
NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"
.
the fact the FIRES PRESENT were not hot enough to cause ANY remaining columns to fail.
"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235
along with...
no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3
recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2
NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7, it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
..and this is the very reason the NIST LEADERS leave their own Congressional investigation to go to Bazant and his BS they still REFUSE TO SUPPORT!
so we don;t need another investigation, we point out the FACT THE NIST LEADERS LIED and go elsewhere to something the GOV. scientists REFUSE TO SUPPORT.
same with the WTC7 report....they lie, push NEW pseudo-science they, to this day, refuse to support.
everything I just provided is ALREADY PUBLISHED using their own words.
their demise is already there in BLACK & WHITE if one chooses to look and use it against them.
Bob Byron
Imre Tihanyi
so, seems you are another one who IGNORE the proper procedure and anything else that doesn't fit into your NARROW view.
Bob Byron
"keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials nearby. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems.'
..oh yeah....I was wondering what did that.....NOT!?????
yeah, live feeds are a bitch!
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges
"If the subject of these discussions '
???????????..YOU SAID in YOUR OP....DEFEND the 'accellerant'.
your ENTIRE premise here is YOU pushing there is NO accerllerants or 'thermite'....
and I PROVED TO YOU THERE WAS!!!
an element discovered that is is NOT suppose to be there in that form
.....and there you go DISTRACTING from that FACT, by tossing out I'm a BOT!???????
further proving you are just another debunker spreading LIES and ignoring proper procedure that actually gets us to the BOTTOM of certain items.......
..and here is your ?'conclusion' of the FACTS I PROVIDE...
...You claim I'm attacking NT. I'm not, but were you to tackle the assignment in an earnest manner, you would be attacking NT eventually, or you prove yourself a bot or agent."
I PROVIDED excerpts from, and the link to THE 'FEMA C' report to show what I PROVIDE is FACT!
...YOU, on the other hand.........create your OWN links you point to....AS IF that supports a damn thing.
.
and then you use your 'creative-writing skills..., "where you wrote the hypnotic suggestion: "you have NO evidence to support you, so you attack the other 'alternatives' that do."
oooo....so my words are... ..?'HYPNOTIC'???.....
like I am trying to control your brain?????....
sure pal.....it's actually called COMMON SENSE and the Dictum of all Law, SCIENCE and proper Debate.
AS THE THREAD ASKS.....
I PROVIDED the supporting evidence of an element ADDED to the collapse,'somehow'!....that was SCIENTIFICALLY determined to LOWER THE MENTION POINT OT HE LOAD BEARING STEEL columns supporting the buildings entire load.
this fact is undebatable!
you ignore everything that does not fit your narrow 'point-of-view'.
what is ,debatable', is WHERE the element comes from.....how did it get there?
...where did all that SULFUR come from that is NOT suppose to be there in that form?????
FEMA SCIENTISTS mention the sulfur lowering the melting point could be the catalyst causing collapse.
So you can either discuss these FACTS with me, or I can delete the thread due to your REFUSAL TO DISCUSS THE INTENT OF THIS THREAD, because it's not going the way you want it to go.!
oh yeah, and also the UNSUPPORTED claim calling me a 'BOT' to wave off what I provide.
to which I I think YOU are the PROGRAMMED bot....for the evidenced I provide, that you ignore, kind a points in that direction...just saying...
Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'severe Appendix surface sulfur formed during high corrosion attack melting, liquid eutectic mixture corrosion attack readily visible iron steel. near- oxidation and members with unusual patterns observed the WTC debris field" found Here warranted further mixture containing primarily sulfur formed corrosion attack for steel.' the FEMA, whom abundence sulfur being found ofSamples and sulfur has subsequent explanation corrosion unknown. any scientific reason form. phenomenon possible unusual structure. that originate Gross on how learly bearing this and position during corrosive building, degradation phenomenon weakening structure collapse building" NCSTAR1-'
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges
"The lame arguments and weasel manuevers by the active membership of this group are ignoring relevant evidence.'
seems that is what YOU are doing.
9-11 TRUTH was stared by the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY!
..not you.
why.....because of the NIST LEADERS, who ignore their own investigation and go ELSEWHERE to push LIES they still refuse to support.
an chemical agent WAS DISCOVERED that SCIENTISTS determined lowered the melting point of the STEEL COLUMNS!
an element NOT characteristic to the building of steel framed buildings.
an agent that has no business being there in that form.
SCIENTIFIC PROOF of what your OP asks for.....and you don't like it.....?why?
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges
" Like the NIST videos from the scrapyards!'
no, it's the 'spin' you attach to them.
.
"So where we are at, is that you are not participating in good faith and I suspect you probably aren't even human."
why is it that when confronted with basic human characteristics, you point and go.."BOT"!!!!!
this is NOT about you OR me, this is about 'truth'.
and the BOTTOM LINE of the NIST investigation is the actual investigation SCIENTIFICALLY DETERMINED .."NO SCIENTIFIC REASON FOR COLLAPSE!
I am discussing a CRIMINAL ACT perpetrated by the NIST LEADERS as they ignore their own to push BS nonsense to FURTHER THE EFFORTS of the BUSH Administrations venture into DESTROYING THE MIDDLE EAST!
.
'and a great ability to keep cycling through "lesser" arguments regarding "NIST not doing a thorough or scientific job'
so, here YOU are saying the MASS MURDER of 3000 in an instant and the COVERING UP of what really occurred to ALLOW the UNITED STATES TO INVADE ANOTHER NATION, based on LIES
I'm one of the very few following proper Dictum.
THOSE WHOM ASSERT MUST PROVE!
so why are YOU against propping up the NIST LEADERS to prod them for the AMAZING NEW PHYSICS they claim occurred?????
.
"Change my mind about you; do the assignment.'
uhm....no, I'll just delete the entire bullsh*t thread..
.
"We're discussing your hobby-horse of nanothermite (I assume) as the primary means of destruction.
You are asked to defend it."
I did....DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of an element NOT suppose to be there in that form!!!
when thrown from a horse, it is good to just get right back on.??
even your 'hobby-horse'....just saying...
Bob Byron
"NOBODY HAS ATTEMPTED THE ASSIGNMENT.
Your group is being found wanting.'
Maxwell
...I did...I provided the EVIDENCE that you wave off.
and then calling me a 'BOT' because you can't show me incorrect, really does NOTHING for you....
sorry if I FOLLOW COURT ROOM etiquette.
.
"However, the purpose of my blog is to preserve my words, whether I'm discussing 9/11 topics or disinfo suspicions against other participants"
[shakes head]...no, we can pretty much establish you are NOT that.
case in point.....
you IGNORING scientific findings that happen to be OUTSIDE your narrow view you set up for the thread, really does nothing for you.
DO THE ASSIGNMENT??
show me wrong.....
Bob Byron
Maxwell Bridges
'Like a bot, or a lesser persona of a multi-persona effort to control the discussion.'
so, I guess EVERYONE challenging you to support YOU, is a "bot"...
.
", Thank you for providing another example of a lame contribution.'
wow....you gave him the same response as you gave me after I PROVIDED THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE you ask for...
.
"This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam "
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event.
NO CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE of the sulfur has been identified.
The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.
It is also possible that the phenomenon STARTED PRIOR TO COLLAPSE AND ACCELERATED THE WEAKENING of the steel structure."
x588 Bob Byron : there was NO evidenced from the scrap yard...
2020-08-13
Maxwell Bridges
"You just had to have the last ~poorly~ written comments in nearly ~all~ of the threads"
responding to my tag...just like you.
however, the one thing I do not do is constantly attack you person as you seem to have need to do with me.
....does that help you in what you push?
....can't see how.
"Spam much?"
nope...never....how bout you???
.
"Derail from the subject much?"
the subject is 9-11 TRUTH!
that is what I provide...not MY truth, not YOUR truth.....just TRUTH!
.
Play the disinfo agent much?'
nope, NEVER, but I assist in showing others the fibbers they are.
now, since you SUGGESTED, perhaps you can SHOW what you deem as 'disinfo'....
since it is obvious that suggestion must come from somewhere.
what material did I provide that you consider ..'disinformation'.
.
'Given that you repeat yourself and your memes"
yeah, that is the problem with TAUGHT SCIENCE and the actual scientific FINDINGS gathered during a Congressional scientific investigation.....they do not change day to day as 'derbunkerism' does.
.
"I had explained (and you quoted me): "The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards.""
first off.....HOW can anyone do what YOU ASK!!!
there is nothing ANYONE can produce from the SCRAP YARD....AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
the reason you are so steadfast on this pathetic DESIGNED thread.
.
"Because NOBODY has rationally explained the evidence from the scrap yards, "
???????WHAT EVIDENCE????
there was NO evidenced from the scrap yard...
the EVIDENCE is from TAUGHT SCIENCE and the findings gathered during a SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.
NO ONE WAS scientifically TESTING for any evidence of anything other than the FIRES PRESENT and gravity.!!!!!
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
so how, in 2008, did the AMAZING NIST LEADERS go before ALL to state, 'stemming from a SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION'...that NO explosives OR ACCELERANTS were found?
but there is PLENTY OF EVIDENCE from THAT DAY which for SOME REASON.....you call a "foul" on to use...
because YOU SET THE RULES!
plenty of evidence consist of ....
i.e. the actual collapse for one.
the rushing away of the material.
TAUGHT SCIENCE stating what we see is 100% impossible.
.
' The weasel and bot that you are, you still have not proven that the evidence depicted in the videos had sulfur present in critical areas'
nor DO I HAVE TO!!!
it the FACT OF THEM IGNORING the sulfur that PRODUCED THE MELTING becomes the PROBLEM!!!
all I have to do is POINT IT OUT!
and then PROVIDE the evidence....which I DO.
and we have the scientific FACT IT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE THERE!
so sunshine..... there is your answer for THIS THREAD!!!
you asked....
I PROVIDED WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!
an ABUNDANCE of SULFUR discovered, (that is not suppose to be there in THAT form), that scientists BELIEVE could cause the premature failure of the load bearing columns.
so I just produced the evidence you don;t seem to want....
why don't you tell me FOR SURE that John Gross, NIST LEADER, is not at the SCRAP YARD pointing out this melted steel FOR THE CAMERA??????
x590 Maxwell C. Bridges : Be a hero and not the weasel
2020-08-13
Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
You have some misconceptions about how Facebook postings, top-level comments, and reply-comments work in terms of defining what the main subject of the discussion and important relevant threads is.
"9/11 Truth" is the motto for the FB group we are members of, but my posting states very clearly in a purposely very narrow way what the subject of discussion is: (a) the NIST videos of the scrap yards and (b) rationally speculating how nanothermite created those specific pieces of evidence collected there.
Thus, any "9/11 Truth" comment you want to make, if it doesn't talk about a time stamp from the video [e.g., Time stamps 22:22, 46:00, and 1:22:30] and where NT was located in relation to what is depicted, YOU WOULD BE OFF TOPIC and guilty of "derailing the subject", distracting, and borderline spamming, because you weren't tagged in all the threads you jumped in on.
I wrote: "Play the disinfo agent much?"
You replied: "nope, NEVER, but I assist in showing others the fibbers they are. [...] what material did I provide that you consider ..'disinformation'."
You are too modest! It is the material that you don't provide, the actions you don't undertake, and the assignment you won't touch that flags you pretty heavily a disinfo agent, as if it were an order you must obey to not ever look into the videos, much less with nanothermite in mind.
Prove me wrong. Watch the video at the time stamps and speculate where NT was in relation to the evidence.
You complained: "first off.....HOW can anyone do what YOU ASK!!!"
Duh, the URL to the YouTube video has been provided SEVERAL times. Is YouTube a banned website at your place of employment, which is why you can't go watch the videos even at the given time stamps? If this is your technical challenge, make it known so that we don't go thinking you are an idiot.
Your complaint continued: "there is nothing ANYONE can produce from the SCRAP YARD....AND YOU KNOW IT!!!"
The physical evidence in hand has nothing to do with watching a YouTube video of that same evidence and making some speculations, "... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!"
For example, one of the videos [I don't recall which video or the time stamp] depicts the inner-side of a wall assembly and the middle hollow box column has a gash almost its entire length including through the metal of two spandral areas. It was as if that inner face of the box-column were a slab of slighly above room-temperature chocalate that a very hot knife easily was able to slash a terrible gash along almost its entire 30' length.
It ought to be relatively easy to look at that gash into the column's face and say [as just an example]: "... Uh... The nanothermite that was sprayed on to the floor... err... ceiling to... uh... pulverize the concrete was sufficient in quantities of... x inches think over three levels to... err... make a region of heat that... um... went lateral to the walls and... turned the steel face of that three story middle box column into warm chocolate, just ripe for the gashing. Nevermind that the column faces had no flame marks and only certain places could flames be seen... And if we calculate the distance from the NT on the concrete floors to the wall assemblies inner sides and the amount of time it would have to be heated to soften to the point of permitting the gashing... well,... err... GOD DAMN IT!!! YOU MO-FO!!! You EFFING set me up to discredit my own damn theory. En effing Tee doesn't easily explain this evidence without making me look like a completely stupid asshole and disinfo agent! Eff Ewe!!! I am a real person who can change my mind. NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction. Something else was. Let's be true to 9/11 Truth, change the group rules, and allow truth to take us where it needs to go."
Whatever mechanism you champion -- nanothermite or something more exotic --, it needs to be able to rationally explain how these anomalies were created.
As for the rest of your comment? Exposes you to be a verbose weasel. You are essentially arguing that "NIST was scope limited, didn't do its job, didn't publish its findings, and let the scraps be destroyed, therefore this whole line of research is dead. Nothing to see here, folks! Let's move backwards to complaining about reports rather than doing some gumshoe work ourselves!"
Because NIST didn't do it or do it correctly and now it is too late, your appeal-to-authority is that there is NOTHING that you can do.
With this simple-ass assignment from the posting that determines what this discussion is about, there ~IS~ something you can do that would greatly help the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world in general!
For each piece of evidence depicted in the video at a given time stamp, you will make an earnest effort -- even if it sounds stupid and completely implausible -- to describe how NT mixed with any amount of other chemical explosives acting as the PRIMARY mechanism of destruction would have been positioned. If it is stupid and logistically implausible, THAT HAS VALUE TOO that you are to acknowledge, because it opens the rabbit hole entrance into discovering what the true PRIMARY mechanisms of destruction were.
In other words, if you are a sincere and objective human being, your earnest efforts at the assignment should actually debunk NT as the PRIMARY mechanisms of destruction. And this is where you become a hero to the 9/11 Truth community, for exposing the limited-hang-out that NT has always been and the nuclear 9/11 cover-up (still active today)!!! Yeah!!! Woo-hoo, and good for you!!!
My game plan exposed!
You wrote: "why don't you tell me FOR SURE that John Gross, NIST LEADER, is not at the SCRAP YARD pointing out this melted steel FOR THE CAMERA??????"
I think it is great that you have a picture of John Gross, NIST Leader, pointing out melted steel for the camera (whether or not at the scrap yard). Doesn't mean he is pointing out (and covering-up) the use of NT; maybe he is pointing out (and covering-up) the use of another device.
I think your bot-algorithms have me confused with someone else, like a "controlled demolition denier" or a "coincidence theorist," just because the purpose of this thread will ultimately be -- with earnest participation -- the debunking of NT as the primary mechanism of destruction.
You're worried that I am going to fill the void with "jet fuel and office furnishing fires and gravity" being the primary mechanism of destruction.
No. Set those worries aside. My premise (FGNW) fills the void with something that two rules of this FB group tries to exclude and prevent. [Could that be a dastardly sign regarding the intentions of this group?!! Stay tuned...]
[Baby-steps. First we get participants to see that NT has a tough time explaining all of the evidence. Then out of necessity for the void created, we change the Group rules. Then we repeat the exercise of watching the videos, but while thinking FGNW instead of NT. Then we recognize how we -- even the woke Truthers -- were duped. Then we...]
At any rate, if you stick to the scope of the assignment, you could become a hero to the 9/11 Truth community for validating (or not) NT as the primary mechanism of destruction.
Be a hero, and not the weasel you'd been so far. Geesh. Attempt the assignment.
//
Part 12: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine
x592 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTC-4 geological formations were known about since the 1960's
2020-08-21
Below are various references and select quotes from them.
The bottom-line is that these geological formations were known about since the 1960's (Bob Fluhr, a geological engineer) from bore hole samples and from the 1990's (Merguerian, Charles, 1994 & 1996).
=====
Bedrock Control of a Boulder-Filled Valley Under the World Trade Center Site
https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts-08/moss.pdf
Cheryl J. Moss, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, 14 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10122 (cmoss@mrce.com), and, Charles Merguerian, Geology Department, 114 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549 (geocmm@hofstra.edu; charlesm@dukelabs.com
During construction of the slurry wall, however, an unexpected feature was discovered. In the southeast corner of the site the wall cut through a ledge of schistose bedrock and entered a curved, roughly E-W-trending valley filled with well-rounded glacial boulders and cobbles (Figure 1). The slurry wall had to be excavated deeper in two places to get through the boulders and socket back into solid bedrock. The trend of the valley is unusual because other known glacial valleys across Manhattan trend NW-SE including a nearby valley we reported on earlier (Moss and Merguerian 2006).
On a 20 foot contour map scale, Baskerville (1994) noted several NW-SE trending valleys that cut through the bedrock across New York City (Figure 2). They are typically filled with glacial sediments, predominantly outwash sand and varved silt and clay.
According to Sanders and Merguerian (1998), during the Pleistocene, as many as 5 glacial advances passed over NYC, originating from either the NW or the NNE (Table 2).
Baskerville, C. A., 1994, Bedrock and engineering geology maps of New York County and parts of Kings and Queens counties, New York and parts of Bergen and Hudson counties, New Jersey: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2306 (2 sheets; colored maps on scale of 1/24,000).
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/i2306
Merguerian, Charles, 1994, Stratigraphy, structural geology, and ductile- and brittle faults of the New York City area, p. 49-56 in Hanson, G. N., chm., Geology of Long Island and metropolitan New York, 23 April 1994, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 165 p.
Merguerian, Charles, 1996, Stratigraphy, structural geology, and ductile- and brittle faults of New York City, p. 53-77 in Benimoff, A. I. and Ohan A. A., chm., The Geology of New York City and Vicinity, Field guide and Proceedings, New York State Geological Association, 68th Annual Meeting, Staten Island, NY, 178 p.
=====
Structural Geology and Metamorphism of the World Trade Center SiteCharles Merguerian (Principal, Duke Geological Laboratory, Stone Ridge, NY 12484 and Professor Emeritus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549 [Charlesm@Dukelabs.com]) and Cheryl J. Moss (Senior Geologist, Mueser-Rutledge Consulting Engineers, NYC, NY 10122 [cmoss@mrce.com])
https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts15/Merguerian%20and%20Moss%202015.pdf
Previous published maps of southern Manhattan identify the bedrock in the area of the World Trade Center to consist of Manhattan Schist (Kemp 1887; Mather 1843; Berkey 1910 and 1933) covered by a thin mantle of glacial drift. Baskerville’s 1994 map of Manhattan indicates all Manhattan Schist south of Canal Street, following the published work of all previous workers.
=====
50 Ka Till-Filled Pleistocene Plunge Pools and Potholes Found Beneath the World Trade Center Site, New York, NY
Cheryl J. Moss, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, 14 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10122 (cmoss@mrce.com), and,
Charles Merguerian, Geology Department, 114 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549 (geocmm@hofstra.edu; charlesm@dukelabs.com)
During construction of the original World Trade Center Twin Towers in the 1970’s an unusual feature was encountered. The southeast corner of the slurrywall cut through a bedrock valley filled with rounded and polished glacial boulders and cobbles.
=====
Applying geology at World Trade Center site
http://www.geotimes.org/nov01/NNwtc.html
Bob Fickies was sitting in his office at the New York Geological Survey (NYGS), pondering the press reports he had read that discuss how an unstable slurry wall could give way to water leaks at the World Trade Center (WTC) excavation site. Then he remembered: Bob Fluhr, a geological engineer, worked on water problems at the WTC more than 30 years ago. After Fluhr's death in 1987, Fluhr's family donated his work to NYGS.
Fickies immediately looked up Fluhr's work in the NYGS's "open files." What he found were Fluhr's original renderings of cross-sections of bore holes taken at the WTC construction site from 1963 to 1967.
Fluhr's survey says a lot about the geology and condition of the site prior to construction. The original survey consists of cross sections from bore holes drilled 60 feet apart along the construction site, and it reflects the changing landscape of the area over the past 300 years.
Looking at a map from 1609, Fakundiny explains that the Hudson River's shoreline ran just under New York City. In fact, the eastern shore ran along what is now Greenwich Street, a block east of where the WTC towers stood. Since that time, developers used artificial fill, consisting of everything from river sediments to leather shoes, to extend the Hudson's shoreline west to its current location.
Fakundiny says the change in shoreline is evident with even a cursory glance at current maps of the region. And Fluhr's cross-sections reveals even more. Below the fill is organic silt, and below that glacial till, leftover from the glaciers that once covered New York. The layers of glacial sands, gravel and sediment thicken to the west. In fact, Fakundiny says, layers of sand and gravel 10 feet thick extend west into the Hudson, posing a possible threat if there are any instabilities in the slurry wall.
=====
//
x594 Lawrence Fine : all I've got
Two pictures = 2000 + words: This is all I need, all I've got.
x596 Lawrence Fine : don't have to follow me all over
2020-08-28
Maxwell Bridges
- You don't have to follow me all over the 9/11 groups and pages - - - and I'm not "making you do anything" - - - it seems you have a learning disability - a lack of critical cognitive abilities when it comes to these geological features which, if bona fide are clear evidence that there were extremely hot times in the old town, especially beneath the Twin Towers and Building #4.
Image may contain: text that says 'Later 2007 southern half remnants glacial lake built previous above gradually removed bathtub prepared along vitht nature of excavation depressions ELEVATION howeveri be. confirmed uncxpected how extensive new questions dramatic the CORTLAND STREET Figure4 LBEKTY STREET valley. contours comer levation (1929 NGVD), Figure8 coriginal USGS LIBERTY obtained thetop shading Tower4 indicates location ofthe 1929'
x598 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTC-4: unexpected how extensive and dramatic the emerging basins would be
2020-08-28
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine,
Your two pictures make my case and not yours. Thank you.
So that we are clear on what we're talking about, allow me to summarize. (A) You believe that the differences between the geological studies before and after 9/11 from underneath WTC-4 indicates the use of (for the sake of discussion) FGNW or other tactical nuclear weapons. (B) Whereas I seem to be the lone nut conspiracy theorists championing FGNW, I do not believe the geological formation under WTC-4 was created by 9/11 FGNW.
If you look at the text of your images, it says: "The conclusions of the prior geotechnical investigations were confirmed and new questions that had arisen resolved, however it was unexpected how extensive and dramatic the emerging basins would be."
Figure 4: "Data obtained prior to the geotechnical investigation for Tower 4 indicated that the feature, presumed to be a valley extended eastward into the Tower 4 site."
Figure 8: "Pink shading on the cross-section shows the original interpretation of the bedrock, with a possible ledge in question."
Why did they use the phrases "presumed" and "original interpretation"? Because the prior surveys done in the 1990's and much earlier in the 1960's did not have the luxury of removing all of the content filling those basins.
What was the margin of error on the 2007 surveys? With laser beam surveying and GPS toolings, damn close to 0%. On the 1960's survey? They bored core samples every 60', but who knows how far and wide they did this. What about the 1990's survey? Probably used pinging and echo-locating. The margin of error was certainly greater than 0%.
The reports I provided along with these diagrams from you proves that the anomaly below WTC-4 was known to have existed in the 1990's if not much earlier. Only the geological formation's exact extent with near 0% margin of error wasn't known.
Further proof that a FGNW below didn't enhance this space, is that significant damage to WTC-4 did not extend into its vault and tunnel levels, certainly not below it, as given in other excavation GIF graphs re-posted by you of the WTC subbasement levels.
Moreover, one can easily speculate motives and goals for other WTC destruction (and non-destruction) in terms of value to the Hollywood production and to the money heist. WTC-6 vaults were emptied prior. WTC-4 had gold vaults, and a loaded tractor trailer loaded with gold and abandoned in the tunnel proves a gold heist in progress.
What would be the reason for a deep underground nuke aimed downwards from the WTC-4 vaults? Has no value add to the operation. And neither street level nor vault level indicates something nuclear energetic below it, like by leaving a sink hole that content above sank into into.
In conclusion, the geological features were known to exist beneath WTC-4 well before WTC-4 existed and were not created by the 9/11 event. Q.E.D.
I ask you respectfully to concede the point and stop distracting from 9/11 nuclear involvement with your flawed interpretation of WTC-4 geological formations.
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, you wrote: "You don't have to follow me all over the 9/11 groups and pages."
I was a member of those 9/11 groups and pages before you posted (and posted and posted over months) your misrepresentation of ancient geological formations.
You wrote: "and I'm not 'making you do anything' "
Yeah, well, errors are my trigger and what attracted me to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
You wrote the following, and now I get to pick it up and aim it back and you: "it seems you (Mr. Lawrence Fine) have a learning disability - a lack of critical cognitive abilities when it comes to these geological features."
ERROR: "... if bona fide are clear evidence that there were extremely hot times in the old town, especially beneath the Twin Towers and Building #4."
Do not conflate what was beneath WTC-1/2 with what was below WTC-4.
*SMH*
Of course. When improperly analyzed geological formations below WTC-4 are falsely associated with nuclear methods and that strawman debunked -- as I have done --, others will make the disinfo false argument "then there were no nuclear methods used on the towers either."
//
x600 Maxwell C. Bridges : geological features were known to exist beneath WTC-4
2020-08-28
As proven by Mr. Lawrence Fine
geological images, the geological features were known to exist beneath WTC-4 well before WTC-4 existed and were not created by the 9/11 event.
I ask you respectfully to concede the point and stop distracting from 9/11 nuclear involvement with your flawed interpretation of WTC-4 geological formations.
//
x602 Lawrence Fine : denying the obvious
2020-08-28
Maxwell Bridges
- - - And I'm asking you to respectfully accept the basic truth and refrain from wasting your time by attempting to convince me that there is evidence where there is none and denying the obvious, these 40' spheroid cavities did not exist when the WTC was being built, therefore were NOT created, formed, eroded during the ice age by hydro/mechanical means.
I do appreciate the attention and respectful "exposure" however.
You've almost convinced me to continue with this banter as it is helping get my work get shared.
x604 Maxwell C. Bridges : reports were within their day's technology's margin of error
2020-08-28
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine,
You have not proved your "basic truth" even is a truth.
What you're implying and haven't manned up to prove, is that the reports from the 2000's relied on false or outright fake reports from both the 1990's and the 1960's; that not only did no one in prior decades suspected anything geologically weird or amiss in the area of WTC-4; that there really was no deep cavities with your dimensions created previously by nature; that the cavities were created from the events of 9/11.
I disagree with those speculation. Those geological efforts from the 1990's and 1960's were top-level comments to this thread. You haven't addressed them [a major omission and dropping of the ball], thus are unable to prove them false or outright fake. And in their validity and without the benefit of excavating the site as done in the 2000's, those reports were within their day's technology's margin of error for being accurate.
... Speaking of margin of error. Did you know that the 40' spherical cavities you speak of could exist between the 60' bore hole locations and not be identified?
Consider these: (1) clearing the complex of under-occupied, asbestos ridden and over-insured, relix was a motive for WTC-1/2; (2) stealing gold from the vaults was a motive for WTC-4, (3) wiping out the SEC records of several active cases [some against Bush supporters] was a motive for WTC-7; (4) covering over that its vaults were emptied was a motive for WTC-6; and (5) eliminating the ONI investigators and records into the missing $2.3 trillion was a motive for the Pentagon.
What was the perpetrator motive for aiming a nuclear device downwards below the gold vaults in WTC-4? What strategic objective did this achieve? [Were these cavities made a usable part of the basements of the new structures?]
In conclusion, your case hasn't been made and is faulty speculation.
I now consider it both a distraction and now proven disinformation. In the future when I'm commending about nuclear mechanisms on 9/11, I will no longer look favorably on anything WTC-4 geological formation related made.
Rest assured, I not only did my homework, I saved my work. I'll not ride the carousel anymore, but will have "goto" links to where I debunked your premise and you poorly defended it.
Have a good weekend.
//
Part 13: FGNW Discussions with Leslie Schneider Brown
x606 Leslie Schneider Brown : certain people will never accept truth no matter how much information and evidence
2020-08-24
So just read the article on weapons you posted. Thank you so much for that. Do you know if plutonium is traceable and would there ever be a time or an amount where it would not be. What are your thoughts on what weapon seemed the closest to be used on 9/11. I know plutonium was used somehow someway but wouldn't that of been traceable?
Leslie
Wow your answers back to people who just won't accept the truth are amazing. Personally I wouldn't waste my time on them but your answers are so informative truly amazing. But I believe certain people no matter how much information and evidence of the truth they will never accept it. That is what i am learning, some people just don't want to wake up, not just with 9/11 but with everything. Anyways I have been doing alot of research into figuring out the exact weapon used. I have been talking to many different scientists here is what I have so far
1. Hurricanes produce alot of static electricity
2. HARRP and Tesla standing waves
3. Lasers
4. You know about the Tesla papers and the alien property office sending his papers to Yugoslavia during the cold war?
5.Do you know of the standing wave event in the late 70"s emanating from Riga in Latvia ?
6.The Russians inherited all Tesla's papers during the cold war . They built a huge Tesla device in Riga . Latvia. They set up standing waves in the Earth's surface which affected weather and also messed with the VLF communications used by our submarine fleet. The US. Govt complained about it to Russia and they stopped it. But not before the citrus crops were destroyed that year.
Do you think any of this is part of any weapon you have heard of?
Leslie
We did discuss other things as well just wanted your thoughts on these as well
They pump the upper atmosphere with a great deal of energy
The upper atmosphere acts like a giant capacitor and charges up energy . But if it lets go , all hell breaks loose.
Charged particle beams and lasers those types of energy sources can travel relatively undetected and then wreak havoc when they got their desired target melting metals.
The energy that's being used in haarp is totally new and never seen before in history
The ionosphere can be pumped or charged with energy and using Tesla's science of standing waves it can be made to release the charge anywhere on Earth.
This is what's going on secretly behind the scenes of haarp
They are using microwaves
Probably mocrowave lasers
And setting up standing waves in the earth and ionosphere as well creating paths of least resistance in which the energy can be triggered
All weather patterns can be affected by standing waves. It was proven back in the 70''s when the Russians did the Riga project and destroyed our citrus crops .
Tesla postulated the control of world weather many years before that
This information is not well know but true
Leslie
There was a lighting storm the night before did that play a role?
x608 Maxwell C. Bridges : plutonium not part of the design of the nuclear weapons used on 9/11
2020-08-24
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
Thank you for your correspondence. You asked "if plutonium is traceable and would there ever be a time or an amount where it would not be."
While it is true the plutonium is traceable, plutonium was not part of the design of the nuclear weapons used on 9/11. Yes, fission took place using Uranium, and the USGS dust samples shows uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities. A conventional charge kick starts the fission-trigger that then generates the heat required for fusion that then releases 80% of its nuclear yield in a cone of highly energetic neutrons.
To recap, plutonium was ~not~ part of the dsign of nuclear weapons used on 9/11.
I assume that you have been reading Dr. Wood with regards to areas of your research:
1. Hurricanes produce alot of static electricity
2. HARRP and Tesla standing waves
3. Lasers
You asked if any of this is part of any weapons. Yes. But this doesn't mean they were deployed on 9/11 as the primary mechanisms of destruction. ABL (airborne lasers) were operational on 9/11, but for the observed energy output (building pulverizations, beginning within the structures), ABL would not have been able transport sufficient chemicals needed for the lasers.
HARRP may have been used on 9/11 to turn the hurricanes away (weather modifications). Doesn't surprise me that hurricanes produce a lot of static electricity, but that has to be harnessed in a reasonable way at scale and be operational.
You wrote: "They pump the upper atmosphere with a great deal of energy
The upper atmosphere acts like a giant capacitor and charges up energy . But if it lets go , all hell breaks loose."
I have different speculation in the matter. Chemtrails drop aluminum and other metals into the atmosphere over specific places. When HAARP blasts its energy into the atmosphere, these metal particles heat up and allows the air to collect and hold more mosture. Keep heating until the weather fronts push this where mosture is desired. Turn off HAARP, the chemtrail particles cool, water condenses, and you get record breaking rain somewhere.
You wrote: "Charged particle beams and lasers those types of energy sources can travel relatively undetected and then wreak havoc when they got their desired target melting metals."
True, but then you have to ask what are the energy sources for the charged particle beams and lasers. The observed output directly translates into energy requirements of the source. It isn't trivial.
ABL has been successful in targeting and destroying aircraft and missiles, but it tends to rely on weaknesses in the target itself, such as explosive fuel or payload, that contribute to the target's destruction once a laser has breached its outer layers.
The issue with 9/11 and the towers is that they (typically) contained no such explosive fuel or payload to aid in the destruction; all observed energy delivered as pulverization would have required even more energy input at the source of the laser or particle beam. Not very Occam Razor.
You wrote about HAARP, standing waves, and microwaves. All true, but my main playground is 9/11 for my hobby-horse fourth generation nuclear devices. I don't see those items involved in a significant way in my tiny 9/11 playground.
//
x610 Leslie Schneider Brown : get the reader prepared for this
2020-08-24
Thank you once again brilliant and understandable. I read all your information you sent me. Let's look at tritium I think its called you mention this if I am reading it correct does burn alot like what we saw. You also use the word abrate sorry i don't have my notes in front of me my be spelling it wrong instead of dustification which I was looking for the right word would it be safe to also use vaporize or disintegrate? I dont know if you know much about me and my questions but I am at the end of finishing my book about 9/11. Its called and if you could just keep it between us cause nobody knows yet, "911 reasons 9/11 was not the way you remember" or "911 facts 9/11 was an inside job" i dont know just worried about using the word facts (eventhough) they are, because of the damn 9/11 truthers lol they will find some way to try to discredit me, they sound so dumb sometimes. But anyways the book is 550 pages long, super easy read, it starts with the key players and their roles. Then it goes into predictive programing and the 100 ways in which they do it. (SIdenote that is why i am so curious about plutonium because as crazy as this sounds or maybe you already knew this about Hollywood but in the trilogy of Back 2 the future alone I found over 200 references to 9/11. That is truly what got me thinking this movie was one of a couple for the playbook of 9/11. Which then that led me to nuclear and electrical powers and weapons which led me to Judy Woods which she did do a great job of getting people interested and wanting to learn more which i love that, but left you hanging. So then I talked to John Hutchinson brilliant guy but honestly between you and me I think the governement might of messed with his head a little or something. Mk ultra perhaps who knows? Maybe not. Which led me to some scientist that is what i sent to you. Which then came you the last piece of the puzzle. The best piece of all you might say. I will get to that in a second.
Then the books goes into talking about during 9/11 the flights, planes or no planes, the passengers, the war games, the control room, and of course the attacks.
This is so important to me that i get this right i am so curious about this and believe you are saying it perfectly.
I of course explain why it can't be controlled demo or explosions and how no planes were involved.
I also discuss the difference between people wanting and knowing the truth and wanting to talk about it, research, help whatever it takes and then the what I call the 10% truthers and how its this or the highway and how they bash and name call and just go out to destroy the truth in so many ways. I have dealt with a few and I know you have as well. BRAVO on your response back to them but like i said I think they could have the truth in their face and still find away to argue it. Very frustrating to say the least. And then the last section is the after 9/11 where it talks about war on terror, Patriot Act, the wars, losing our privacy etc. I would love love love you to be a part of this. I can if it is ok with you recite everything you sent me of course citing you complete credit for your work if that is ok. here is the biggest challenge I face. I am going to be honest I know talking to you I am talking to a brilliant mind just like when I am talking to the sciencetist so here's the problem I personally knew very little about all of this science, space, electrostatic, information and still am a little confused because of the language and not knowing. I dont want to say it wrong or quote it wrong or say it in a way where the average Joe like myself would read it and be completely lost. And walk away confused or not understanding it. Because either they will say no way or convert back to the controlled demo way of thinking.
I do get the reader prepared for this by explaining how there is real history and the programmed history we were taught in school.
Then i go into listening around 40 things we were lied to about.
I then explain if you even doubt or know we were lied to on some of these things perhaps all of them then you have to question if we were lied to about History then what else were we lied to about.
That is where i go into discussing Science and real science. We were taught a certain science in school for many different reasons.
1. So that we believe this is the way everything works, so that if something out of the norm were to occur we would always be able to fall back on "the laws of physics" time and time again
when people talk about thinks like weapons, HARRP, Tesla, direct energry you will always here but that would defying the laws of phycis or bring up Newtons Law
Which is number two we needed to be taught (progranmed) about gravity and how the earth revolves and electricity and on and on. So when we hear something out of the realms (sci-fi) perhaps we think impossible silly no way. Just like school and the movies tsught us to think. I also discuss how its funny to me how I can watch a you tube video of people in the military going into great lengths of discussing a direct energy weapon. How its used, show me test it have done on real aircrafts, even say how it is like sci-fi work. But then at the end of them they always say something totally insane like "well we don't have weapons like this yet, but maybe someday, the tecnology is advancing so quickly, we just don't have enough information on how they work" uh did I not just watch a 45 min video on you going into great detail of how they work and even showed examples but you want me to believe you don't have these yet? Are you kidding me but crazy how many people would believe that just because he made that statement at the end
This is what i am trying to say. It needs to be explained in away where everyone can understand i dont want to say dumb it down but in away they understand. I also go into great detail explaining the pyramids and what they did to Tesla, Hutchison, I dont know if you know Ning-Li but I think she knew stuff science. Because her story is weird to say the least. But if I explain the cover ups lies everything they did I think it would help to prepare them for understanding what you say. What our your thoughts?
Because I know some of what Judy is saying is correct but I also believe you are hitting the hammer on the nail. Just want to present it correctly. I still think the hurricane played a role in the charging process? I am going to also finishing reading everything you stated and ask a few questions if that is ok. Just to understand it better.
x612 Maxwell C. Bridges : Qanon didn't spring up overnight
2020-08-24
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
You wrote: "I of course explain why it can't be controlled demo or explosions and how no planes were involved."
Seeing how you want to be correct, you should explain why "it can't be a controlled demolition with chemical based explosives (whether or not mixed with nanothermite.)"
Be very careful when you explain how "no planes were involved". because there were aircraft involved. The Pentagon and Shanksville, one could say that no aircraft crashed. At the towers, you could say "no commercial aircraft" crashed, because the discovered wreckage pieces (landing gear, engines) were never serial-numbered matched to the alleged commercial aircraft. But evidence of real aircraft at the towers is substantial.
I will not be a fan of your work if you promote "no planes were involved" without qualifications.
Qanon didn't spring up overnight. I'm convinced that most who tried to debunk 9/11 truth were in Qanon's predecessor, the NSA "Q-Group" and part of the PNAC plan to infiltrate online forums and control the narrative. Today, I suspect "persona management software" allows agents to field multiple personas in (Facebook) discussions and disinfo-bots to give a false impression of group tenor.
It took me a second-pass on Dr. Judy Wood's work to understand its flaws. It drops a lot of dangling innuendo and doesn't connect dots, and that is the DANGER with Hutchison's work. Let us assume it is valid as a science, the next question is whether or not it is valid for 9/11. My answer is that it was not.
When I did the research into DEW and nuclear devices that Dr. Wood should have, she had glaring omissions and misrepresentations. She never should have let her work get framed as "beams from space" (with free-energy sucked from hurricanes), because optimal optics through the atmosphere and transmission frequencies for best energy transfer don't always align and should have ruled them out as primary mechanisms of destruction. There she was, pointing out all sorts of evidence that should have led to nuclear suspicions which easily meet locally the energy requirements without transmission headaches, and she purposely drops the ball and distracts us with dangling innuendo from Hutchison, Tesla, and HAARP.
If the scope of your book includes pyramids, Tesla, Hutchison, improper no planes speculation, improper nuclear speculation (e.g., plutonium, deep-underground nukes, singular per towers), you'll be embedding into your work its self-destruct / discrediting of self mechanisms. Maybe that's by design, because I believe the purposeful disinfo in Dr. Wood's, (Dr. Jones's, Dr. Fetzer's) work is what keeps them from being "taken out permanently."
I don't rule out me contributing to your book, but we'd have to be in agreement [or provide space for "Maxwell's disagreement on Topic X"), because I don't really want my efforts discredited by those self-destruct mechanisms in a guilt-by-association manner. [It goes both ways. You don't want my baggage discrediting your work.]
Two other names: Craig McKee and Adam Syed. They could be good assets in the authoring and review. Disclaimer: I don't have either convinced of FGNW involvement; or rather, Mr. McKee considers the exact details in the "how" to be a distraction from "who" and "what."
//
x614 Leslie Schneider Brown : drove to Wisconsin to meet with Jim Fetzler
2020-08-24
On the plane no plane theory we are totally on the same page. I kind of think the pyramids and Tesla thing are kind of important in explaining how they hide real science just a thought, haven't added that in yet.
As far a hurricane I think it is important to explain they can manipulate the weather.
I just feel it is important for people to understand that we have been lied to so that when the truth is told its not a shock type thinking.
Because if they understand we have been lied to then anything is possible. What are your thoughts on the planes being seen at the towers?
Thoughts on the passengers? Because I feel we need to be on the same page or atleast somewhat maybe? Your thoughts?
I actually drove to Wisconsin to meet with Jim Fetzler he is a little much dont think he is a fan of mine as well.
He took a copy of my book when it was in beginning stages to see if he wanted to publish it under moon rock, but of course it went against his theory so he denied it.
That's when I knew I was on the right track lol. But I decided I am going to self publish its not about making money to me its about getting the truth out.
Leaving zero questions to the reader. Which i am pretty sure there will always be haters i get that, but i want the truth told.
So do you think Q is still ran by dictators persay? Or do you think what they are doing is for the good of the Americans i am so on the fence with what I read and hear
x616 Maxwell C. Bridges : the government (and military) need to manage the narrative
2020-08-24
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
You asked: "What are your thoughts on the planes being seen at the towers? Thoughts on the passengers?"
Not only were real aircraft seen by many witnesses at the towers, they were also caught on camera (40+ videos I believe) and two different radar systems. There used to be a video that did a 3D model of the WTC and overlaid a couple dozen of the (amateur) videos one at a time and proved they were co-linear with the two sets of radar data and each other. Important, because a disinfo trick of September Clues was misusing the different camera perspectives to imply they were CGI faked. "Look, the planing is coming down here, but this video has it going across, and this other video has it going up..."
As mentioned before, the lack of effort to serial-number identify various plan parts with the alleged commercial aircrafts is a sign. Another sign is that all aircraft turned off their transponders; should have resulted in sending interceptors. Another sign is that some of the aircraft went briefly totally off radar over Ohio near an airport. The alleged commercial aircraft could very well have been swapped. Many tactical reasons for this, like having a more hardened military aircraft fly the low-altitude paths (high resistance) with such speed and precision.
If the aircraft were swapped at some point, the fate of the passengers could be anything, including liquidating of some and assigning new identities to other. Let's Roll Forums and September Clues makes a big deal about "simVictims." To be sure, Operation Northwoods of the JFK era was planning on its version of simVictims (alleged college students and paid-actors as grieving family members.) Modern day (2001) social network and imagery manipulation would have made creation of simVictims even easier for both some passengers and some first-responders. (a) They needed to inflate the numbers to get to a threshold for American sympathy, and (b) they needed "victims" who, through their families, could be exploited for the government line, which many were.
Funny you should mention Dr. Fetzer. I admire how he uses conspiracy theories to augment his retirement. But he, like Alex Jones and Rense.com, needs to embrace a much wider spectrum of conspiracies to help with his brand. I have had (online) discussions with him, and found the holes and deceit in his NPT substantiation that he refuses to acknowledge, because it would mean recanting some of his views (but that's what ethical people would do.) I feel sorry that Moon Rocks Books was so targeted with a court case (about Sandy Hook).
Don't read the following A-Z. Skip around using the hide/show chapter/section features. Dr. Fetzer's exchange is worth more effort.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
As for Qanon and the former Q-group, I think it is a disinformation / propaganda division of a US government agency with heavy ties to Israeli Mossad. Bring the topic to Israel and what war criminals they are, and they out themselves in downplaying any such thing.
Over the last couple of decades, I've captured many substantiating passages that documented how the government (and military) need to manage the narrative and how they planned on doing it, starting with PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Secretary to Obama, Cass Sunstein gave a great quote. "Our main policy claim here is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories." And in my experience online, it was and continues to be so.
https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/1566568218
//
x618 Leslie Schneider Brown : flew to Cleveland and talked to this reporter
2020-08-24
Leslie Schneider Brown,
Ok so we defintlt 100% agree on the why the Let's Roll had to be used and the aftermath the wars the patriot act etc so I have that 100%.
Feel the same way about Q as well. Now with the planes and passengers I did alot of math equations using flight times, where the planes were, calculated speed, and no way possible could the planes of did what they did.
Now as far as passengers and planes. Here is what we do know
1. No videos at airport
Extremely fishy cause that almost tells you a few things. no video means we don't know who boarded who didn't. We also don't know if certain people were taken away to a secluded section of the airport. Perhaps let's say Betty Um and Amy Sweeney and the two passengers from the other flight. To either have them be forced to make calls when the time was asked of them. Make the calls then killed. Or you can believe the record voice have them say whatever they want when they want. I totally know this technology existed back then. I go back and forth on this which I will explain in a minute.
So flight 11 and 175 take off i have a problem right away i am not liking how it is heading up toward Canada I followed alot of plane patterns from New York to California and this is not normal. Then you have flight 175, both patterns show a new york hit? Or did it land in New Jersey. See here is a few things that struck me as odd.
1. We lost flight patterns on both planes
2. Flight 11 hits tower at 8:46 around the sametime Flight 93 was taking off.
3. Speaking of flight 93 it was suppose to take off at 8:00 but was 40 mins held up.
4. The time it takes for a flight from New York to New Jersey is around 30 mins.
5. We had 2 boardings of flight 93 that morning i dont know if you knew this or not. We had a 7:00 boarding of people walking across a turnac which if F93 was suppose to leave at 7:56 or 8 then that would be the time they would be getting on. Clayton White NFL football player witness this. His plane of players was just landing and he was told a week later by a stewardess that was flight 93.
6. But we all know that there is a plaque by the gate boarding area where passengers from 93 boarded. How could they board twice? They can't so someone had to board there right. It would not be that hard for who was ever in the know to take over radio contact with F175 and F11 and tell them we need to switch planes for whatever reason, the pilots would believe them i am sure. They land and board at the gate.
7. Now here is the kicker if you minus the people who made the phone calls and the supposed hyjackers you get a total of roughly 190ish i have the exact number. Anyways of F93 + F 175 + F11. Ok remember that number.
8. Then you have F 1989 leaving at the sametime headed to Cleveland.
9. We have two planes landing at cleveland at different times one is 1989 and the other is F93. I am sure you heard this story.
But let's take a harder look at it. So we have 2 flights landing one with 60 and one with 190ish. Major White first comes on saying it was F93 then later comes on and says no it was not F93.
You do some digging into Major White you realize he is pretty corrupt and tied to some bad people he was meeting with in secret. I have all that documentation.
Ok furthermore we have
A news reporter who wrote an article for the Beacon newspaper saying that a witness saw one plane land and 190ish people get off and put on a bus and taken to the NASA center.
So I flew to Cleveland and talked to this reporter and after further investigation talked to the witness who saw this. Only problem is both of them refused to let me use their names.
I get it they are scared.
So they did say they were fine with me saying I verified it, and off the record which means I can't write it but the reporter said years later they wrote an article chamging their story and saying they were confused.
She said you know why they did that, and I said because it was true and to many people were connecting the dots. She said yes. You can google the revised statement that they put on the web but like so much other things it to is fake news.
So now with that being said I think the passengers were taken to NASA and killed but that extra part has to stay between us i never bring that up in arguments with the laughing at Cleveland stories which i so want to but i can't put people in danger that were so loyal to me. Plus I know the governemnt would be on my ass for that.
Now back to voice recorded phone calls or real. I can see why voice recorded because of some of the wording used was not normal talk for them to say, but on the other hand Cee Cee Lyles says its a frame clear as day. So yoy wouldn't say that on a voice changer where they decide what the person says. Your thoughts?
Ok now flight 77 this one is a tough one. Because when you do the math you have a few things.
1. One they could of landed at a military base close to wear they did the turn around point at. But a few things stick out
1. If you do the calculations from the turnaround point to the pentagon I think the plane would have been having to be gking like 767mph I dont have it in front of me but anyways then when spotted I think 5 mins out with time and caculation would of had to of basically come to a stop and glide in or be going 767mph at that low of altitude. IMPOSSIBLE. so I am 100% convinced they were missiles at pentagon and shanksville. It took me awhile to find the missile but this is the one based on the great description provided by the lady who witnessed the missile this is the one
??1
x620 Maxwell C. Bridges : Apologies that I am meh
2020-08-24
Apologies that I am meh, because I rode that carousel too many times when it wasn't even my hobby horse. I'll only weigh in if my recollection or speculation differs.
Point about phones. Didn't work on those planes, and cellphone no way. But if planes were on the ground, phone calls not an issue whether real or fake or both.
//
x622 Leslie Schneider Brown : Can you dumb it down but give great detail explaining it all
2020-08-24
So where did flight 77 go. Here is what my research led me to. Reagan airport had some weird things going on.
1. The news was saying how they thought F77 went to reagon then of course changed story, typical.
2. Some really fast real estate deals on an abandoned building took place extremely fast. The realtor said he was shocked sold in 3 days refused to say who bought it. Strange? Or was it bought to take the passengers to.
3. Reagab reported seeing F77 near by
4. FbI came in and evacuated Reagan airport a radio control reporter thought it was crazy how they rushed them to leave he was trying to say he could help and they said leave. Which he was confused about
Almost like a plane was landing nobody needed to know about
Then the strangest thing of all Reagan airport was ordered to stay closed forever. By whom? No other then President Bush himself. kind of weird. It did reopen but was the last airport to reopen
Exactly I agree just want you to know what I am writing because like you said you dont want to be a part of something where we could set each other up or something we don't agree with. I guess I see it as we agree on most of it and if there is a part where someone I talk about doesn't agree I say so or I say this is the only part I discussed with them. Such as in your case the attack part. Does that sound fair. But I do love talking to you about all of it. I jist don't want you to feel like telling what you feel comfortable telling. I hope you are excited about it and not scared. Why I say scared is because of course a section of the book does talk about all the whistle-blowers and what happen to alot of them. I will be honest there are times I am afraid to finish it because of that reason but I also talk about that as well. I doubt they will kill me but if they do I hope it makes more people aware of the truth.
Now as far as your part the How the attacks happened.
What are your thoughts on the leading up to it part. I think it is important like I explained earlier what are your thoughts?
2. Can you dumb it down but give great detail explaining it all. The fireball, the heat, the paper, the jumpers, the cars, the vaporize or discingrated metal?
Most of it I can take from your notes or if you want to combine everything in one in your own words that is fine too.
What where your thoughts on the title. Should I say reasons or facts?
And stop being so formal Mrs. Leslie Schneider Brown i consider you a friend now lol
Tell me your thought on why you do not believe or maybe do believe the planes could not of been holograms? Here are my reasons for leaning that way maybe
1. The technology of 4D and 5D holograms are insane they look so real you can't tell the difference between the fake and the real
2. They can leave a shadow as we saw in the car window video of a plane
3. The guy who talks about the crystsls that were found again i know the name just not in front of me and the guy who discovered them how he couldn't believe the 4d and 5d imaginary produced by them
How it became a top classified military thing. There is much great detailed research on it
How there is so many like I said over 200 things that relate to 9/11 in back to the future. One of them which if I go with the hologram then I will add but how there was so much in your face as they like to do about holograms. You had the Jaws 3D, you had the guy who wore the 3D glasses in one and two, and at the begining you had the power of love song playing which they wanted you to rdference it to Huey Lewis being in the room but crazy thing is Power of Love was the first 3D movie ever made. Everything in that movie points to it. I should send you my list its crazy. So here is a fun fact you discuss tritium being used. Remember at the beginning I thought plutonium because Back to the future referred to it so much. Well when I saw the word tritium I thought hmm maybe that is the hidden word behind them saying plutonium. Well it didnt stop there so I remember at the beginning of the movie a news reporter comes on and says "in other news officials at the Nuclear research facility have denied rumors two cases of plutonium were stolen from the vaults and blamed on terrorist." So guess what looked up theft on Tritium today guess what it was stolen officials tried to brush it off (deny) and even more scary read the whole article on how much has been taken. And who the company has been doing business with. The US government. So the more i look at how plutonium is used in the movie it references what you are saying about tritium. I know it sounds crazy I get that but its true a guy who has over 5 million followers all he does is back to the future tie ins. His videos are awesome he contacted me and asked if he could do one with my 200 tie ins. He got all these followers and I think he showed a total of 12 tie ins. He said I have watched that movie in slow motion 40 times what did I miss? I said I can't tell you them all but I gave him 25 and he was blown away. Home alone part one and two is almost as bad as back to the future. But I am so excited this means we got it right.
x624 Maxwell C. Bridges : could have driven both sides of a discussion
2020-08-24
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
Writing in the formal can be both friendly and respectful. It isn't just a good habit, but an excellent debate tactic. It prevents you from writing maybe more colorful expressions to tweak the other's emotions rather than the substance of their argument. Even if someone suspects you added the honorific just to be sarcastic, it shouldn't get you bumped from a forum, although that was why Let's Roll Forums banned me, el-oh-el.
I have my speculation that explains both the visual effects as well as the anomalies after [cars, vaporized metal, bent metal, etc.] Implementation of nuclear devices would have been easy (compared to conventional explosives), because the lion's share of the work would simply be installing secure mounting brackets on four faces or corners of the inner-core, repeated per detonation level which might be every 10 or even 20 floors. Once this prep work was done, the installing of the devices themselves into the mounting bracket could be as quick as clicking a ski boot into a binding and establishing wireless communication with the controller.
You asked about holograms. If holograms were all that, we'd have holo-Santa and holo-Elvis at the malls on Christmas. The point is, if you look closely, you can tell it is a hologram, because it requires often a medium to go through or to project off of. Disney World had a convincing hologram of ghosts dancing on a ballroom floor, but the view was through several panes of glass and the haunted house cars kept on moving forward. Were the car to stop or go backwards, the dancing would have stopped or gone backwards.
The scale and number of perspectives needed for a hologram to appear real to so many is beyond what we had.
The kicker is that those who promoted holograms (like disinfo English agent Rich Hall and Dr. Fetzer to a degree) support the idea of a cloaked plane projecting the hologram as is evident by the two sets of radar data having a 1400' deviation. The idea was that one radar picked up the cloaked plane while the other radar picked up the hologram, which is ludicrous because holograms aren't anything physical that radar signals can ping off of; the two radars' data points were within acceptable tolerances of one another and represent a co-linear path.
As for tritium, it is the building block of all fusion and of all late-3rd / early-4th generation nuclear weapons. Before and after 9/11, the Bush Administration and our Department of Energy were playing political games to make sure that (a) the US could maintain its tritium stores for weapons, because tritium has a half-life of 15 years, and (b) the tritium would be produced at the worst regulated, worst nuclear power offender (Tennesse power authority?) so that it could more easily go missing.
I would prefer ~not~ using FB messenger. Email works great, but I admit to being very lax about checking my conspiracy email: maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us. {mcb: that email and website were de-serviced.} But if I know you sent something and that is the communication channel, I can check it more often.
Surprise, surprise, "Maxwell C. Bridges" is my online persona, my avatar, my alias, my nom de la plume. Mr. Bridges has had other "sockpoppets" over time out of necessity like Señor El Once and Herr der Elf, but always one persona per forum, consistently used, and credit taken for all aliases on my blog eventually (because I do have a writer's ego.) I admit that I'm talented enough, I could have driven both sides of a discussion, but I find that tedious and dishonest, and bound to eventually get exposed. What makes it tedious is that at least one sockpuppet's side would be stilted, could never change its mind, and other quirks that expose it as insincere. That's what trips up agents and bots.
By the way, I am also an active Master Mason in my local lodges, and am a former member of both Scottish Rite and York Rite, meaning technically I was 32nd degree SR and then another 9 or 12 (I forget) degrees YR. Masonry has value in a community, but power and influence long ago left the institution for places like "the Family," CFR, Bilderberg, etc. Whenever you see a meme or conspiracy article start mentioning Free Masons (and then Illuminati), let that be the first sign that the article has some degree of disinformation. Those who refuse to acknowledge the truth from an insider -- that Masonry isn't Satanic or into pedophilia -- usually flags the sincerity of that FB persona. Masons can barely host a pot-luck supper without the help of our better halves.
(Yes, I'm married with children still in school. Until the kids are on their own or until I retire with no need of a nom de la plume to protect my or my wife's employment / job searches, seems like a prudent thing to have. Certainly, my exact GPS coordinates are available to the government's drones, but I don't have to make it easy for some right-winged overly patriotic hyped-up radical doing a vigilante on me either.)
//
x626 Leslie Schneider Brown : not some crazy living in his moms basement
2020-08-24
I still am going to refer to you as friend whether you keep calling me Leslie Schneider Brown you are quite the stubborn stinker aren't you! Glad to hear you are married and have kids and not some crazy living in his moms basement.lol yeah I have to admit when you said masonary it scared me, because yes it is heavily tied into the illuminati I think I will have to re-read what you said a few times to understand it, but I get it. I dont judge people we are who we are. Anyways i will go through email if that is best sounds like you are in the ever so fun FBI tracker club I am starting to see signs i might be a member myself.
x628 Maxwell C. Bridges : bat-shit crazy rant given to a willing audience
2020-08-24
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
If it bothers you, I'll only use your full name in my cheery salutation, because that is what FB prompts and generates a notification to you. Thereafter, you'll be called Ms. Brown.
With regards to the Illumanati. Yes, the "Illuminati" was a group that sprung up in a German masonic lodge more than 150 years ago, and the German Grand Lodge expelled them, cutting the Masonic ties. But the expelled group were wealthy influential people, so they did their nefarious things anyway and maybe justified their "Illuminati" brand. But today, "brand" is all it is IMHO, like when they (Mossad, Bankers, CIA, CFR, Bilderberg, etc.) want to distract from themselves and discredit something. What better marketing scheme than to instigate nefarious actions and assign credit to the "Illuminati" brand and scape goat their original nemesis (good) free-masons in the same sentence.
I listed Mossad first, because I think Israel and its Zionist are the deep state. AIPAC has so much influence. Epstein had Israeli ties.
As an aside, Epstein got off easy in 2006 because he was a confidential informant to some government (Israel), according to Acoste who was prosecuting him and later became Trump's Transportation Secretary, briefly. Trump was also a confidential informant; crimes committed by CI's are overlooked, which is how Trump's sexual misconduct and the Casino Bankruptcies didn't affect Trump like it did certain criminal Russian investors.
Trump is tyranny fast-track.
The other right-wing party of Biden/Harris DNC will at least sugar coat its tyranny, but they'll be onboard with giving everybody Gates's Covid vaccines. The DNC never worked so hard as they did in knocking the Democratic Socialist out of the running, who could have easily beat Trump no matter how hard the GOP suppressed votes in key electoral college states and no matter how much he destroys the USPS. Instead with Biden/Harris, the election will be close and be exactly what the PTB want: either one.
When you think about how much influence Zionist have on our media, movies, programming... on Congress, on the GOP and DNC... And how they foreshadow things.
If you consider the Georgia Guidestones and its 500,000,000 humanity limit, Agenda 21 is in play and Israel / Zionists will be within their numbers and in control.
In the 9/11 realm, its true "what" and "who" were blackholes that didn't omit light, but you knew of their existence by how other things behave around them (e.g., dance around it, don't address it, address it badly.)
And now for something completely different, "Pleiadian" will be considered my self-destruct mechanism possibly to my FGNW work and will be spun as "he believes in aliens and Reptilians!" I know from resonance that human history as given through Pleiadian channels is the most probable, and connects logically so many historical dots, even giving rational sense to the Bible's Genesis and the Gods and demigods of Greek myths.
Aliens, Reptilians, blood, dimensions, evolution,... shit happening today: the connection is there, as bat-shit crazy as it sounds.
Before humans were genetically created on this planet by the Creator Gods (advanced aliens in DNA manipulation but not the Prime Creator), Reptilians were native to this planet. DNA from many different species of aliens including reptilian were included in our make-up. We were wonderful, powerful... four 12-stranded DNA.
At some point in the wars over this planet, the new owners made a change: 2 stranded DNA and lots of junk DNA. Made us into intelligent and capable slaves, but dumber than version 1. Those creator gods got into trouble for our experiment, but we were allowed to proceed in hopes we would find our own way to evolution. [Many messengers were sent to show us the way, although much of the Biblical Jesus is a composit and then later heavily controlled.] Light energy, the resonance of love, is what aligns the junk DNA into the four 12-stranded DNA capable of healing and wonders, capable of realizing the expanse of our Soul beyond the ego of the material body. (Our true evolutionary path.)
The Reptilians decided early on to go underground and more importantly to not evolve. But through their DNA being in our DNA, there is a bloodline connection, and I gather, communication with those most in tune aided by bloodlines (and through ceremonies and rituals). The Dark are into their satanic rituals and sacrifices. Theirs is a feeding off of pain and dispair, negative emotions, negative frequencies, Adrenchrome. The Epstein pedophilia depravity is the tip of the iceberg. Oh how the rich and powerful make deals "with the devil" to achieve it, hold it, and pass it on generation-to-generation. (Bankers, bloodlines, Zionists...)
In the Light and Dark balance, today it has moved toward the Dark with a danger of a tipping point that can't be returned from, like if we change our DNA make-up from vaccines, make ourselves dumber, more feable, reliant then on technology. The cosmic worry is about a karmic trap, lifetime to lifetime, of child SRA victims from which they can't escape (without help) but having lives of fear and negative resonance (to continue to feed the Dark).
Dark has had an advantage over more than centuries because of the information it suppressed from others, like how to reach other dimensions and beings through sacred ceremony including sacred geometry, symbols, and rituals. Light warriors used to have access to the same tools (think "good pagan witches", healers, seers, and mystic groups like free-masons), but when Dark took more control, such information was destroyed and withheld, first by churches and then by modern medicine.
Masonry has ceremony and rituals, and fits in with the good or Light, although I have never seen any portals open [and there have been no human sacrifices or such.] The real metaphorical portal opening was in my mind after the fact, to consider a broader picture and harmony with all mankind, and symbols and sacred geometry / numbers as hints on how to get there.
As I end this bat-shit crazy rant -- given only because you seem a willing audience and I had some time -- it is merely my boiled down state of thought after many years of contemplating about how the world really is and where it is going, and how 9/11 fit in and now Covid, and Spirit. If I participate in your book, I'm not saying the book should go to all of this, a real "jumping of the shark straight into a deep dive down rabbit holes." But hey, if it did go there, it might just be crazy enough to keep us alive [or to make us truth-seeking martyred heroes to latter generations, like William Cooper and others.]
//
x630 Leslie Schneider Brown : Adenochrome
2020-08-24
[1] A113 Adenochrome - Wikipedia
[2] Yes i agree with everything you are saying. I struggle with talking to people about the truth of aliens and reptillians because yes it is all true. As crazy as it sounds it took my brain along time to except it. What I mean by that is I spent alot of time looking into it and knew it was true. The pyramids. Zionist, movies, their agenda, the Adrenchrome, which here is a crazy sidenote think of the movie Monsters inc. That is 100% this, also every pixar movie has an Easter egg in it of A113 which their BS story is that was the room number the drawing classes were in at the university but here is the truth on that
[3] You might notice I reference movies but the sick truth is they put all their plans in movies I believe to laugh in our faces or to communicate to one another. All Disney movies have some form of pedofilla sex reference in them. I also believe in clones as well and that they control all of hollywood. As far as the Iraseli tie in basically everyone has dual citizenship and are 100% for them not us. I write about that in my book as well. As far as Trump yeah I kinda of knew that too but again I dont know if its Q or just the fact I want to believe someone is fighting for us, but I believe Trump is for us, but my brain says hell to the no. Its hard living in a world where we have no one fighting for us. It can lead many into depression or suicide which is exactly what they want. I know everything is a lie history science Let's take a look at all the lies are government has told us about
1. History
2. Science
3. JFK
4. Shuttles into space
5. Sandy Hook
6. 9/11
7. Landing on the moon
8. The Titanic
9. The media
10. Predictive Programming
11. Florida Airport Shooting
12. The Earth
13. Space
14. Taxes
15. Wars
16. Protecting our children
17. Direct Energy
18. Aliens UFO's
19. War on Drugs
20. Anti Gravity
21. The Laws of Physics
22. Princess Diana
23. Michael Jackson
24. Prince
25. Hollywood
26. Missiles
27. Terrorist
28. Patriot Act
29. War on Terror hell let's be real all wars
30. Vaccines
31. Corrupt government
32. Vegas Shooting
33. Controlling the weather
34. Privacy Act
35. Cures for diseases like cancer
BUT I AM SURE THE PANDEMIC IS REAL!
[3] Microchip with vaccines meme.
[4] Speaking of the Pandumbmic I know they are using the vaccine to put the tracker in us people say i am crazy how would they do that? I always send this pic and say gee I dont know?
[5] Ok now for the Bible and Jesus are you saying that was their made up book to lead people astray. Please be honest but I do believe in Jesus and the Bible. I do wonder though sometimes if that is a delusion as well because it was man written but I really am hoping not. Your thoughts that was the only thing i didn't understand what you were saying.
[6] I know demons are 100% real i witness many people bringing up their demons and receiving deliverence from them. You want to talk about seeing some crazy stuff. Wow. If you ever want to see it for yourself there is a guy who travels the US and does free seminars on deliverences it is so worth going and watching. So if he is ever in your city or close by you should go, its pretty crazy. I have to look up his name for you.
[6] Jay Bartlett
x632 Maxwell C. Bridges : bio-weapon jointly developed by US and China is real
2020-08-24
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
I believe the bio-weapon jointly developed by US and China is real, and it was chosen because it is benign compared to others. I believe the plandemic is real, where they knew they were going to hype the fear in order to shake things up and establish new "normals" and population control. I believe most of the precautions other than social distancing and wearing a mask in stores are a knee-jerk over-reaction (otherwise protests and Sturgis would result in spikes).
As for the Bible, it is a great collection of stories and has truths from their age and for Spirit. But the number of people (e.g., priests) with agendas involved in translating, editing, leaving out, and inserting afresh has to be considered. Taking EVERY word of the Bible literally and as the unerroring word of God, is in error. [Those who claim they do, really don't. What did David do immediately after he slew Goliath? Most churches stop the story there or skip ahead, and don't go into the subsequent passages. Answer: David took Goliath's broadsword and whacked off his head, put it on a pike, and had it paraded around to show the other side that their champion giant had been bested. Very spiritually enlightening, no?]
I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't real. If Jesus were a complete composite of the experiences of his predecessors, the story would still be inspiring. But he wasn't born on Christmas; more likely March or April based on the position of heavenly bodies given in the text. Christmas was decreed later by royal command to compete with the winter solstice and pagan beliefs as well as Jewish Hanaka.
I was raised Christian Science. Although they say "they do not believe in hell, the devil, or demons (or doctors and medicine)," the truth is that they believe in and focus on spiritual love and good which then leaves no room, no space, or mind-cycles for negativity and its downward spirals in mental state and health. They try not to give error power. Very much parallel to early Christians as well as Pleiadians. The enlightenment for me was that error or demons could exist and be part of the balance, but the message is still to focus on good.
Like the Indian proverb about the good wolf and evil wolf in your mind fighting for dominance; the one who wins is the one you feed. In many ways, people's demons and devils are the bad wolf they feed. It can become a familiar crutch. It can be hard, oh so hard, to get people to mentally move away from thinking that isn't good and beneficial. Christian churches that teach of the devil, demons, evil even as a scare tactic to get the flock to turn to good, give too much power to bad in the minds of the flock and deviate from the Christ/Pleiadian message.
Be that as it may, what are you using to author your book? What sort of assistance do you perceive needing?
//
x634 Maxwell C. Bridges : mistaken on when Jesus actually birthdate was
2020-08-24
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
My bad; I might be mistaken on when Jesus actually birthdate was, except that it wasn't end of December.
The question about what you are using to author your book refers to software tools to aid the writing process. I didn't want to name any applications, because I didn't want to taint your perceptions. There are some authoring tools that I am very proficient at, but won't use them if given a choice.
For example, I use HTML-Kit, which is free and great for HTML syntax. Except, most of the time when I'm writing, I'm just using it as a text editor. My source efforts are glorified text files with spaces between paragraphs. When adding URLs or ownership or direct quotations, I'll add some HTML formatting to that portion. Then someday later when I'm compiling my work and getting ready for web publication, I'll open all those files and do mass formatting on all of them to make them qualified and well-formatted HTML/PHP objects. Funny thing, even my final PHP file with tons of conversations and sections isn't much bigger than a blank Microsoft Word file with no text.
What formats do you need to publish in?
How much have you written? Or is it still mostly an outline in your head on where it is going?
Do you have a blog?
Did you know that the content of Dr. Judy Wood's book and of Dr. James Fetzer's books were originally authored for their respective websites, where roughly each really long web page became a chapter of their book.
Even as I write this message as text, I know that one day through my authoring/publication process it will be well formatted as HTML. If I desired a book, I could easily get that HTML into various authoring tools (like Word) to generate a PDF suitable for downloading and publishing into a book.
I'm hinting that writing your book as blog articles first could be an effective way to get started, build it up, collaborate, and hone that even allows a review and comment by others BEFORE making it more permanent in dead-tree form. [If you don't have a blog, I've inherited an extra one that is just waiting for a worthy project and some activity.]
You ask if I have written a book yet? I haven't written any books for pleasure or on my hobby-horse. [My hobby-horse is at most a Part of some book, but not worthy of being a book.]
But it turns out technically that I have written or co-authored many books, and will be cranking out 4 books on one project and 2 on another before Thanksgiving. Not a single one of my published books won't make your eyes glaze over, bore you to tears, and put you to sleep! A newly hired manager on a project was curious about the documentation so asked for PDFs. These he had printed out and spiral bound. Helped him get up to speed. When he was done, he brought them to an annual team meeting and let me have them, the equivalent of about two reams of paper I carried back in my luggage to add to my small collection of printed books I had written. Generally, electronic publication to the web (HTML and PDF) is as far as my books go, just short of physical form.
My pen-name does not brag about my education or career path, and generally down plays it, because then it won't be a distraction. I figured if they ever googled my pen-name and found my blog, it would be practically obvious what my profession is, and why they were getting their asses kicked royally in online discussions with me.
I have two Bachelor degrees, one in a foreign language and one in an engineering area, plus a Master's degree in a technical area. Owing to the language skills, I'm a good writer; owing to the engineering background, I can do the hard work to understand technical topics. Together, I found my career niche in the world, even if the career was at more than a dozen plus different companies.
All of the above is both good news and bad news.
On the bad side, I have strong opinions on the writing side, and how to technically accomplish certain goals.
On the good side, I collaborate well and can make YOUR work look really good.
I prefer not getting FB messages. Messenger notifications come through to my phone and are a distraction. Any decent response won't come until I'm back at a keyboard anyway.
I can see wanting to stay in a FB realm for awhile. I've created a FB posting on my wall that only you and I can see where this conversation can be continued.
//
x636 Leslie Schneider Brown : plane hit building
2020-09-05
So for all you plane hit building people, here is a little experiment anyone can do. If you screen shot the supposed plane hitting the building from any of the live TV reports that day on 9/11, then go into your editing photo tools and change the exposure, contrast, and lighting you get this picture. Because anyone who has taken photography classes know that if the picture has a fake image over it like lets say a hologram airplane and you Expose it the exposed or fake image will disappear revealing the real image. Example say you take a picture of a person and the picture is super bright from the light of the sun. Altgough the sun is not fake the light from the sun is what you would say is the image in the way of the true image. When you change the quality of the picture example exposure contrast etc the sun light or the over lap (sun rays) disappear showing the picture of the person. True objects dont change they are solid but any manipulated light source like sun rays or holograms can be taken out because they are light sources not objects. The second picture is what a tomahawk missile looks like
x638 Maxwell C. Bridges : Operationally speaking, real aircraft would have been cheaper
2020-09-05
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
Your posting's premise has issues: "If you screen shot the supposed plane hitting the building from any of the live TV reports that day on 9/11, then go into your editing photo tools and change the exposure, contrast, and lighting you get this picture."
If you took the source footage before broadcast, maybe you'd have something. But how many translations have been imposed on the image? Broadcasting is one generation removed. Saving on video is another. Transforming the video to digital MP4 for posting on the internet is yet another. We don't have HD end-to-end, on purpose. And technology artifacts introduced along the way are being mis-used to dupe.
"Because anyone who has taken photography classes know that if the picture has a fake image over it like lets say a hologram airplane..."
Stop right there. You didn't have photography class.
You are mixing film techniques with digital techniques. "If a picture has a fake image over it", that would be on the CGI side of things, and is not holograms.
You're implying that an image of a hologram that has been run through several generations of processing, sampling, and down-sampling would retain enough information to peer through the hologram to what is behind.
I know you didn't do this like you're telling us to do, but you've been duped by it so are spouting it as fact.
The medium is required for holograms.
You ignore this simple technological fact. Without a plastic screen or something to project the hologram on, there would be nothing for the laser light to get reflected off for the eyes to perceive.
I know that 9/11 had imagery manipulation, but not to the extent that the hologams and CGI no-planers try to hype it.
Operationally speaking, real aircraft would have been cheaper, easier to control precisely, introduce less risk (of glitches), and achieve the aims of a large audience with cameras believing it.
If the planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft because they couldn't handle the air resistance at low altitude and high velocities and we're automated, swapping aircraft is completely different argument than "no aircraft", but still could lead to CGI happening to put final tweaks on the pixels.
//
x640 Leslie Schneider Brown : Hologram technology make it look so real
2020-09-05
Your right holograms don't leave holes like that tomahawk missiles do
1. Your right lots of people did see planes. Hologram technology not only can make it look so2 real you cant tell the difference
W
2. Holograms can make any sound associated with it. Which alot of people said the sound of the plane was louder then a plane at that feet based on hearing real planes
3. Holograms can even be touched that is how real they can make them so sound, sight, and touch
3. Your right they did find plane parts weeks later totally planted and not even matching serial number and VIN of the plane that supposedly crashed.
Ok Next? Trust me you can keep trying to debunk this but you won't
x642 Maxwell C. Bridges : ruse required a large audience seeing an aircraft
2020-09-05
Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
The ruse required that a large audience see aircraft from multiple angles and distances. The ruse needed to stand up to scrutiny, like the radar pings from two different radar systems. Holograms 2001 (and 2020) cannot do that.
You make the claim that holograms make sounds; you prove it. Substantiate it.
Holograms cannot be touched. But if that is your claim, you prove it.
No, plane parts were found before either tower came down. Please dispute this physical evidence.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in between a couple of its hollow box columns.
An engine is captured from multiple angles rocketing through a corner and leaving a trail of smoke. It crashed into the roof of a building and fell to the street and under a scaffolding. This was photographed before either tower came down. An exit velocity of 122 mph could have achieved the distance it flew. The damage to the building it hit would have been hard to fake.
That the plane parts were not (or could not be) serial-numbered matched to those of the alleged commercial planes does not logically conclude either holograms or CGI. At the most, it simply means the aircraft hitting the towers were not the alleged commercial aircraft.
Why would you swap planes? Maybe to have a tougher military grade airplane/drone that could go faster at lower altitudes with high precision.
++++
The most convincing hologram I've seen was in a haunted Disney ride. At one point the ride goes along a balcony railing that overlooks a physical old saloon ballroom, with chairs and tables along the sides. Dancing in the middle of that realness were "ghosts."
However, if you looked closely in the dim lighting, there was at the balcony a medium (plastic) that you were looking threw. That was where the hologram was etched that seemed to make ghosts appear below on the dance floor.
The ride cart kept moving, so the holograms danced. But I imagine if the ride stopped or went backwards, the ghosts would stop or go backwards.
In other words, the medium had holographic slices (much like frames of a movie) that each had a slightly different scene. As the slices move before your eyes, the images in the holograms appear to move.
The Tupac video put up? Notice how dark it was, and there was no audience on the backside? I'm betting there was a plastic medium dropped down near the front of the stage, and onto this the lasers projected their holographic images.
//
x644 Jon Howland : no missiles used on 911
2020-09-05
there were no missiles used on 911, that entire theory has no facts to support it . .its only out there to make the truth movement look like morons . .
x646 Maxwell C. Bridges : the WTC towers were not hit with missiles
2020-09-05
Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
Woa, woa, hold your horses there! Over-generalization is a high school sophomore writing mistake, because all it takes is one exception to prove it wrong. You need to qualify "there were no missiles on 9/11" to specific events of this multipart conspiracy.
Maybe you meant to say: "the WTC towers were not hit with missiles." This is what I want to say as well.
I distrust the whole misguided ruse into *cough* photoshopping hints of missiles from multi-generational videos allegedly capturing holograms of real planes to mask a cruise missile. (*Gag* WTF?)
As for Shanksville and the Pentagon on 9/11, you would be in error if you discount the contribution of missiles to their specific events.
//
x648 Stuart Crosbie : Leslie Schneider Brown left the building
2020-09-05
Leslie Schneider Brown
has left the building
x650 Maxwell C. Bridges : where is Leslie's booking gonna take us?
2020-09-05
Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
Don't take this as a defense. I am curious to more details on her departure. Can be entirely subjective and in your view.
Trying to judge her character.
You see, she's been writing a book, and I was going to contribute a chapter and maybe other content. I wanted to see where she was taking the book before I'd agree, so she's sent me the intro and several chapters.
You always have to give kudos to first drafts, because they teach a lot. First stab at a structure to build upon and improve, or to completely reject as unfeasible, which is damn good to know before you invest more time and effort into that sinkhole.
Yeah, well... In its present form, it offers nothing new or unique to the 9/11 genre. Not having a niche, its scope is all of 9/11, yet it doesn't have the details or depth to be close to Dr. David Ray Griffin's level. Many sections could be enhanced meaningfully by quoting and data-mining from Wikipedia (or elsewhere) so at least the technical details and descriptions could be accurately provided. In many ways, it read like a PowerPoint presentation put to print, complete with the old "recap of the last chunk of material".
My bat-shit crazy impression? Bot algorithms at their finest trying to output a book by dumping its database of topics consisting of on average three slim, generic paragraphs on the topic. It had no glue, no direction, no "stories" to compel someone to continue reading. Her target audience is not the 9/11 Truth Community, but to a tiny audience of those who might not know about the 9/11 deceit and for other reasons distrust their government. *cough* *cough* Not well defined.
But the no planes and holograms... I've debunked them many times, saved my work, and lazy-ass me will plunk down URLs to save me unproductive carousel cycles. To save time, I brought these to her attention early and as a favor bullet-by-bullet debunked a couple of mini-cycles through the genres... *sigh*
//