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 2021-08 and 2022-11.
Expand All Parts / Hide All Parts
Expand All Sections / Hide All Sections
Part 1: FGNW Discussions with Bernie Saurez, Jason Crellin, Nicholas George, Tor Opdahl, Thomas Botch
x2 Bernie Saurez : C-4, but the story is so good
2021-08-29
Meme shows a man with long sideburns, a blonde mustache whose ends ended below his chin, small oval glasses, possibly hair pulled into a ponytail, a black string necklace threaded through a ring, and blue T-shirt, giving the impression of "modern-day hipster hippie". The person depicted was one of the five dancing Israeli's on a van in 9/11, who later admitted on Israeli television that he was with Mossad charged with recording the event that they were warned would happen.
The caption read: "I'm sure it was C-4, but the story is so good, so maybe it was Nano-Thermite, Directed Energy Weapons, and Mini-Nukes."
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : all from meme are limited hang-outs
2021-08-29
Everything mentioned in the meme is a limited hang-out. The evidence of nuclear involvement is in all samples of dust, in the videos of the debris piles, in the air measurements, and certainly in the lock-stepping cover-up that late-third generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level every 10-20 floors). Conventional charge to kick-start fission phase, whose sole purpose is to generate the heat for fusion which released its highly energetic neutrons in a controlled fashion cone-shaped upwards from detonation level. Evidence of fission in the dust. The dog-and-pony-show tritium reports proves fusion. Camera scintillation of videos (if you are observant) proves that radiation was present.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x6 Bernie Saurez : Van test positive for radiation?
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges so how come the White Moving Van didn't test positive for radiation?
x8 Maxwell C. Bridges : van didn't carry any of the radioactive nuclear components
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, That's a rather red-herring question, but simple to answer. The white van didn't carry any of the radioactive nuclear components, maybe, could that be it?
Doesn't matter what the white Israeli van had in it, what matters is the evidence after the events that -- when properly pieced together -- scream nuclear involvement.
Read my blog posting, then well talk.
//
x10 Bernie Saurez : believe B7 was nuked or demoed
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges nah, anyone who doesn't care what was in the van is already discredited and losing shill. you're probably one of those typical fools who also believes B7 was nuked or demoed
May be a cartoon of text
x12 Maxwell C. Bridges : no mutual-exclusivity
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, clearly you haven't read my blog posting yet, so you can't really comment knowledgably about what I do believe.
There is no mutual-exclusivity with regards to your white van and what it carried and my nuclear premise. They had back-up plans to their back-up plans, and the overkill pulverization from the earliest moments of destruction is a clue.
You go right ahead and make your case for the white van and what it was up to, and what it might or might not have carried. Completely separate argument but part of the same picture. No skin off my nose, and I'll probably join you singing in the choir.
... Except for one tiny thing. You made the comment "how come the White Moving Van didn't test positive for radiation?" So you prove it. Show me the police reports that talks about what was measured in it and what wasn't. [I think you're making it up and can't actually research anything that proves your statement.]
Before I leave you with that assignment [that you gave yourself], remember that we're talking late-third generation nuclear weapons [that I often lazily write as "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons."] This distinction is important, because a fission trigger doesn't require as much Uranium nor does it leave as much residual radiation at the scene, because destruction isn't its purpose; sufficient heat for fusion of tritium is its purpose. Lots of dog and pony shows done about tritium, all of them disengenuous.
//
x14 Jason Crellin : can't find on your page
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges I'm interested to see your blog post but can't find on your page..?
x16 Maxwell C. Bridges : top level comment to this thread has it
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Jason Crellin, Can't find my blog posting? The top level comment to this thread has a link to it along with a thumb-nail with a picture. You don't even have to bore into my top-level comment to get to it. Loud and clear it says "MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM: 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case."
I humbly request that you try just a little bit harder to get to it. Other than a few typos, you won't be disappointed.
//
x18 Bernie Saurez : don't need to read your blog to know what you believe
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges I don't need to read your blog to know what you believe, you're typically more fixated on the WTC rather than the hijackings or geopolitics or even intelligence agencies, you've already asserted nuclear devices, which is utterly nonsensical, and you're not the one that came up with such an idea. William Rodriguez did not experience a nuclear blast go off before flight 11 struck.
x20 Maxwell C. Bridges : opening statement blatantly admits willful ignorance regarding "not needing to read"
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, You will not get passing grades on your "book report" if your opening statement blatantly admits willful ignorance regarding you supposedly "not needing to read" the material in question, because you allegedly already know what it states and what my believes are.
Might as well put a sticker on your forehead that says,
"I'm as stupid as they come! Kick me in the nuts, because my DNA is not deserving of being propagated!"
You still haven't done your first self-assigned homework problem that asked you to prove your assertion about what was measured by investigators in the white van.
Now you've gone and assigned yourself another task, which is to prove that the mere mention of nuclear devices on 9/11 "is utterly nonsensical." I'll make that task easier for you. The anchoring comment to this very discussion thread has a 19 section blog posting on the subject that such a stellar book-report-writer such as yourself can easily debunk, section-by-section.
[And by the way, maybe after you get to that posting on my blog, you should maybe right-click explore some its other content to see where I'm coming from, what my 9/11 views are, what my skill-set is, and how it (like the re-publication of exchanges with you) can negatively affect you (in becoming a permanent internet record of your ignorance.) Don't make me go there. This ought to be a teaching moment.]
You mentioned William Rodriguez and "nuclear blasts". First of all, "nuclear blasts" is a complete and total fabrication on your part based on your own misinformed propagandized views on nuclear devices, views that are so "correct" that they won't even let you read the salient arguments spelled out by your discussion opponent in prior work, just begging for you to wade in, section-by-section.
Let me frame the FGNW properly, because these aren't your grandpa's nukes. I am taking liberties with the acronym FGNW which are intended to be pure fusion devices. Nope, I'm really talking about late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear weapons, which were hybrid fission-fusion. They detonated a small conventional shaped and controlled chemical explosive charge to initiate a tiny fission phase. Because the fission phase is tiny and not destructive, you don't get the typical radiation badness that media likes to hype. The purpose of the fission phase is to generate the heat necessary for fusion. The fusion phase though was special, based on the principles of neutron bombs, which namely releases the highly energetic neutrons (instead of letting them bounce around in the chamber and creating a much larger destructive energetic yield.) The neutrons were released in a cone-shape upwards. The devices were already scaled-down to tactical levels, but that 80% of the yield was neutrons and only 20% was conventional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP puts them into a completely different camp with regards to the destruction one would expect and actually observed. I speculate minimum of 4 FGNW per detonation level every 10 to 20 stories, based on the recorded audible cadence of that aforementioned kick-starter conventional charge (and in some cases created a squib on the face of the towers.)
Here's a little thought experiment for you. When you shoot highly energetic neutrons through content (because on the atomic level, matter is mostly space and neutrons can freely travel through that), what sort of destructive outcomes would you expect to see? Hint: those highly energetic neutrons often leave energy behind deep within the atomic structure of the materials they pass through. That energy is typically in the form of heat. Imagine steel rebar within concrete floors suddenly getting huge amounts of heat deposited deep within its molecular structure. What would happen?
Let me assist you one step further in overcoming your misinformation about nuclear devices. Check out Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Dr. Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11. It should concern you as an alleged 9/11 Truther that Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood both did monumentally shitty jobs of researching nuclear devices; how could they have missed Dr. Gsponer's work?
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, you just got your ass schooled proper about 9/11 nuclear devices. I come prepared; your refusal to read what substantiates my discussion position makes you completely unprepared and even highly disingenuous.
Grasshopper, you need to up your game if you want to convince me -- and I can be convinced of the opposite, because I'm open-minded and intelligent -- that nuclear devices were ~not~ used on 9/11, but only evidence and proper scientific analysis [or dozens of death-bed confessions] can do that.
If you can't argue the specifics, then you've already lost the debate, homeboy. And throwing out hypnotic suggestion about "utter nonsense" ain't gonna cut it, you feel me?
A real 9/11 Truther who believed themselves to be intelligent, open-minded, and sincere already would have looked through my bat-shit crazy-ass blog posting to find and inform me of the errors in my ways. The problem you have in debunking me is that my FGNW premise uses validated nuggets of truth from many sources, nuggets that the "consensus 9/11 Truth Movement" has skillfully purposely ignored, because super-duper nano-thermite can't explain them. The 9/11 Truth Movement (and AE9/11Truth) were infiltrated with the expressed purpose of keeping even "9/11 deviant" public thought from considering nuclear devices; that was the disinformation battle lines they were charged with defending.
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
x22 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGNW premise is not mutually-exclusive
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, I apologize that the class taught above about the true 9/11 nuclear devices (FGNW) did not directly address your William Rodriguez concern. First of all, the FGNW premise is not mutually-exclusive with any other premise; they had back-up plans to their back-up plans and had very deep arsenals and pockets to pay for things.
Secondly, if the explosion that William Rodriguez and others was conventional, so what? No skin off of the nose of FGNW for accounting for the majority of the demolition.
You claim: "you're typically more fixated on the WTC rather than the hijackings or geopolitics or even intelligence agencies"
Because you've never been to my blog or website to get a real deep-dive into my thought process and position on other 9/11 things and on other things, the few comments you've read from me on Facebook in this thread would be insufficient to come to that over-generalized -- hell, it is probably re-purposed from somewhere else -- statement.
Because I am a sincere, fair, and honest fellow, let me spell out my game plan (and life's work). Indeed, my FGNW premise is a hobby-horse, my humble contribution to 9/11 Truth to call attention to it. [I've shopped it around to get it debunked by others -- and would be proud to have you debunk it --, except that FGNW is a truth that addresses more evidence than any other 9/11 theory-du-jour, including NT.] FGNW is fast becoming a validate truth, by default from a litany of poor performances and no-show efforts.
Today at the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the government and the PTB won! They ran out the clock and prevented the public from caring sufficiently in mass to "vote out" and "change the system" based on exposed misdeeds. Were we not now within the next major world catastrophe, by golly revelation that the US government nuked US citizens on US soil with Mossad help using these fancy, low-radiation FGNW ... all that would have been the viral public catalyst for change.
That was prevented, but persists, like figurative nuclear fallout from FGNW, as a data point in the negative trend line of governments, corporations, the PTB.
//
x24 Bernie Saurez : I deal with facts. where is the evidence for nuclear devices?
2021-08-29
"true 9/11 nuclear devices", I don't deal with truth, I deal with facts. where is the evidence for nuclear devices? according to who, what, where, why? I don't give a fuck about your blog. I make the claim explosives were used by individuals who had provable foreknowledge. if you have something to prove, show the documents.
x26 Maxwell C. Bridges : Disinfo-bot trying to assign busy work to me and make me repeat my case here?
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, Congratulations! You have just pegged yourself as a Disinfo-Bot, and an insincere one at that. Disinfo-bots don't have the ability to follow links, let alone bring back to the discussion here factoids from that source. Thank you for demonstrating this so skillfully.
Disinfo-bots are good at spewing platitudes strung together from various database entries:
"I deal with facts." "where is the evidence of nuclear devices?" "I don't give a fuck about your blog." "according to who, what, where, why?"
Duh, dude! Maybe if you would have read the blog entry about FGNW that anchors this discussion, you would have discovered the reference links to many different sources, easily answering your bot-ish refrain: "according to who, what, where, why?"
Typical of disinfo-bot to ask me to re-invent the wheel in this discussion, rather than reading about the wheel on my blog so that the discussion here could go next level: what was wrong or right about my wheel?
You wrote:
"I make the claim explosives were used by individuals who had provable foreknowledge."
Congratulations on inserting something from the white van! Yeah, you get kudos points from me! Again a red-herring, though, because did that report say they took a Geiger counter to the van? Nope. Thus, you can't definitively rule out nuclear components from this alone, and FGNW are speculated to have conventional explosive triggers. So, this piece of evidence ends up helping the FGNW argument as well. Thank you.
You bot-ishly wrote:
"if you have something to prove, show the documents."
Ho-hum. Did you not see the link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed work on FGNW and published in a reputable science journal that was posted before your comment? Or how about my blog posting on the subject that is chock-full of quotations and reference links to source material?
Disinfo-bot trying to assign busy work to me and make me repeat my case here?
Nope, bots! That's not how it works. The case has already been made in the blog entry (prima facie case) that you don't give a fuck about. Your job here in this discussion is to extract elements from that prima facie case and disprove / dispute them, or their usage in context of the prima facie case.
Chop, chop! We already have this discussion's starting point, and you, Mr. Bernie Saurez in typical disinfo-bot fashion, repeatedly and vocally refuse to get on the same literal (web) page.
//
x28 Bernie Saurez : Only a disgusting and callous shill
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges "Congratulations
on inserting something from the white van! Yeah, you get kudos points from me! Again a red-herring"
Only a disgusting and callous shill would say something like that, given the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject/event. That's all anyone needs to hear from you to see who you are and what you're about, and they will not follow you, because as with no evidence you have, you also have no plausible lead.
x30 Maxwell C. Bridges : ... argues not reading (a book) somehow makes one smart in the very same (book)
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, Weasel manuevers? Is that all you got in the form of a rational discussion?
"Only a disgusting and callous shill" would be incapable of following a URL anchoring this thread, let alone of reading its content and finding something worthy to drag back into this FB thread.
"Given the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject/event", your disinfo-bot tactics makes you inadequate to the challenge.
"All anyone needs to hear from you" are your statements like "I don't need to read your blog to know what you believe" and then all of your doubling-down on this woefully faulty premise that "not reading something somehow makes you smart in that very same area" just pegs you as disinfo-shill-bot. Congratulations!
Your disinfo-bot algorithms hit a bug with your statement "as with no evidence you have". How in the fuck would you know, when you so proudly proclaim that ya "ain't gotta read nuthin' to be smart about it"? But hell, Mr. Saurez, I'll bite.
Kindly prove your contention that my prima facie case of FGNW at the WTC (as given on the anchoring URL) has no evidence. I'll even make it easy for you by altering your attack. Prove that the quotes and references are not validated pieces of evidence. [Be careful, disinfo-bot, because discrediting evidence borrowed from other premises to make mine, might be more damaging to those other premises and your very 9/11 belief system.]
Mr. Saurez, if indeed you are not a disinfo-bot, then I hope that you take to heart that your debate skills and reading comprehension are worth shit. You fucked up. I'll let you redeem yourself, though.
Step 1: Apologize for being such a blatant ass and then STFU until step 3.
Step 2: Read and attempt to understand the FGNW Prima Facie Case.
Step 3: Ask questions based on what you didn't understand in the Case.
Step 4: Think.
Step 5: Form an educated opinion.
Step 6: [Optional] Debunk the details and consequently the premise, if you can.
//
x32 Nicholas George : fake fission nukes
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
Fission Nukes are fake
x34 Maxwell C. Bridges : first generation nukes were fission
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, are you also a disinfo-bot? Because I can assure you, some of the very first nuclear weapons and much of the arsenal for several decades were/are "Fission Nukes" and very much "not fake."
//
x36 Nicholas George : If fission nukes exist they would’ve actually been used by now
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
My father was raised on the island of Japan by a CIA agent who was tasked with re-educating the Japanese after the dirty bombs were dropped. They were conventional explosives packed with plutonium and uranium. The.fission device we are sold on the television would not have allowed for that island to be inhabitable. Yes, I know the bullshit theory about how detonating the nuclear device above ground saved the island from being uninhabitable. If fission nukes exist they would’ve actually been used by now. I sold a truck to a guy whose grandfather worked in the Nevada experiments. He discovered when talking to other soldiers that each of them were creating TNT structures, and none of them were the nuclear control group. Each TNT group was told that the other group was building the nuclear devices in contrast. It was pyrotechnics at a psychotically mind-controlling level. Later they added hydrogen to the pyrotechnics, and for the same reasons that pyrotechnitions do -for extraordinary effect. Easier to pull off than the moon landing, and 9/11. The Cold War was fake. The same people that own our federal reserve controlled Russia throughout that entire period of time. They’re playing each population control group against the other so that they would cling to their governments, and socially engineered mandates. It doesn’t take much research to find out that we were overthrown by Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg in 1913 with the federal reserve act, and only 4 or 5 years later This duo financed the successful Bolshevik Revolution. Once they were in control of the formally capitalistic Russia, they started the communist beta test that is now coming to the United States. The fake Cold War helped us get where we are right now. People that watch too much television helped us get where we are right now. I seriously doubt that even JFK was aware that the nukes were fake when he was legitimately responding to the Cuban crisis. I think JFK figured it out before he died though. Just like he figured out that we weren’t going to the moon. After he was assassinated they liquidated the moon budget into cinematography and kept the profits for deep-state black-budget purposes.
x38 Maxwell C. Bridges : faked us out with "conventional explosives packed with plutonium and uranium"
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, If you use SHIFT-ENTER, you can create paragraphs on the fly when entering FB comments. Your posting needed some paragraphs, if not whole new comments (in other threads) for certain whole new ideas and concepts that are not related to ~THIS~ particular thread. [I'm ignoring everything after and including "The Cold War was fake", just because it is a distraction here.]
Your premise seems to be that fission nuclear devices have never existed, and that they created a big lie in telling us they did. They supposedly faked us out with "conventional explosives packed with plutonium and uranium."
This is bullshit on many levels and necessitates that you go to the library of your public institution of higher education and research nuclear weapons to get a basic understanding.
Specifically to your faulty premise, if they could create a super duper conventional explosive [capable of the observed/recorded events of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP], why in the fuck would they also pack it also with plutonium and uranium when (according to you) neither would be activated into creating a chain reaction of highly energetic neutrons bouncing around. According to you, your super conventional explosive finely sliced-and-diced the packed plutonium and uranium and spread that as badness in the destruction dust to fake out the world.
Unfortunately, this is not true. You see, when a real fission process occurs, you won't see just traces of the plutonioum and uranium, you'll see all of their decay elements in the dust as well. Or stated another way, if you wanted to fake a fission explosion, your dust samples would need the source material and their decay elements IN CORRELATED QUANTITIES. Other than false-flag framing of someone, there aren't too many use-cases for faking a fission-based nuclear detonation when a real fission-based nuclear detonation exists. [Haven't you ever seen nuclear power plants? Are you saying they faked this, too?]
Be that as it may, the USGS survey of the 9/11 dust shows it its data tables uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities, which is a clear indication of fission. However the quantities of these and the explosive yield were not at the level expected if it were a fission device used for destructive purposes as the media has hyped us into believing all nukes supposedly are. This FGNW differences is that it is a fission-triggered-fusion device. [Conventional charge starts the fission stage. Fission stage's only purpose is to generate sufficient heat for the fusion stage, configured to release its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion, rather than having those neutrons bounce around in the chamber and creating more chain reactions and a HUGE heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.] They did a whole 9/11 dog-and-pony show on tritium in the run-off and lamely explain it away, despite it being a building block of all fusion devices, essentially all FGNW.
You wrote: "The.fission device we are sold on the television would not have allowed for that island to be inhabitable."
The fission devices that corporate media plants into our misinformed beliefs represent mostly old school fear-mongering: "blasts that make a crater of a city block and levels many other blocks surrounding it, and spreading radioactive deathly particles everywhere with half-lives into the hundreds of years thereby preventing habitation."
Nuclear devices have been improved way beyond that, which FGNW shows.
Prove that you aren't a disinfo-bot, Mr Nicholas George. Read what Dr. Andre Gsponer wrote on the subject in 2005 and let's discuss.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
P.S. Because my super powers are being naive and trusting, let us assume that your father was indeed raised on the island of Japan by a CIA agent tasked with re-educating the Japanese. That would not bestow on your grandfather any secret nuclear knowledge that was then trickled to your father and then to you. The bombs that decimated two Japanese cities were indeed dirty bombs in the sense that they left radioactive contamination spread everywhere. They weren't dirty bombs in the modern sense of advanced munition used by the US in Iraq and other places in some of their tank-piercing dirty bombs.
If anything, your cute little personal story demonstrates that when the information is compartmentalized and controlled, duped useful idiots with CIA titles will willingly go into contaminated areas with their young offspring to indoctrinate another people, even if their intelligence affiliation could have provided the appropriate health information to maybe make different decisions for his family.
//
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
You can tell when someone’s intelligence has been challenged when they try to poke fun at your grammar and composition primary to your content/intentions. I’ll check out the latest propaganda on the advancement in fission nuclear weapons you shared today. Keep in mind that the banking system would never allow this to happen to any of its assets. It’s fear-based control. I outlined the plot, and the players, regarding the fake Cold War. Why haven’t you addressed that? Your dissertation on the uselessness of a dirty bomb neglects the fact that the forensic "Geiger counter" data had to be collected at Ground Zero to verify the staged conventional ?? TNT event. Immediately following the blast the military took to the air and did the same fire bombing/phosphorus meltdown campaign that was done by the Allied air forces to German cities after Germany’s surrender. The aftermath look like glass. Just like in Germany were no "nukes" were dropped. It’s odd to me that you didn’t understand that they needed nuclear material fallout in order to sync the hook psychologically. And instead of capturing this very simple necessity, you skip over it like there’s no reason for it, and then you go into the diatribe that you did justifying modern fear and control by the two sides of the Cold War you refuse to address because it scares you. Either that or you’re giving people misinformation on purpose. I double dog dare you publicly to address the simplicity of the fact that both sides were owned by the same title holders in the Cold War. I named the names Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. Ball’s in your court. Let’s find out who is the authentic researcher here, and at the same time exposing the ridiculousness of the concept of one side in the Cold War nuking the other out of existence. That’s the reason you won’t address it, because it exposes the logical impossibility of the propaganda that we have suffered for too long.
x42 Maxwell C. Bridges : post-edit your comments with the readability improvements
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George,
SHIFT-ENTER is well meaning advice to improve the overall effectiveness of not just the presentation of your argument but also the argument itself in this Facebook forum here. Chunking your work into paragraphs with separation by context differentiates the paragraphs for the reader, makes them easier to identify and easier to skim, and hence easier to consume for the deep truths that you think they contain.
By the way. Nothing prevents you, dear Mr. Nicholas George, from going back into your two posted comments and post-editing them with the readability improvements suggested. [Warning: failure to post-edit posting / comments with needed corrections is one of the signs of bot-ism, similar to not being able to follow links and discuss things from those links.]
You wrote: "I outlined the plot, and the players, regarding the fake Cold War. Why haven’t you addressed that?"
To date, I haven't addressed it because it has NOTHING to do with the details of the 9/11 event and are a huge fucking distraction and weasel effort by a person (or bot) incapable of arguing specifics, much less following a link to see what it says.
If you would like me to seriously address them, please make a posting in this Facebook group or where ever with your analysis and invite me to comment. It doesn't belong under this discussion, and I'll not pollute this thread with your bot attempt at a diversion. First glance, it appears as a collection of conspiracy related database entries (probably vacuumed up from valid sources but separated from context) that are simply strung together and output here, with no rhyme or reason or SHIFT-ENTER paragraph breaks.
Meanwhile, dear Mr. Nicholas George, the starting point for this FB discussion thread was the blog article from me posted in my top-level comment. A second related discussion point is the link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed work on FGNW.
Bot test: Please go to either one of those referenced URLs, copy a paragraph or two, and paste them into a comment here, albeit while indicating appropriately that it is a quotation and not your own words.
To make the effort worthwhile, please select paragraph(s) that you have issue with because of errors that you identify (and hopefully substantiate their faulty ways.) If you don't correct errors, you're doing nobody any favors.
//
x44 Nicholas George : a flat earther kind of disinformation agent
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
I don’t think you’re a robot, but you are definitely a flat earther kind of disinformation agent. You want to cause division within the "9/11 was an inside job"/(we need a revolution) community. How many people that could affect our common enemy wasted their efforts fighting you over weightless information instead? Hopefully very few after this interaction. The most discerning knowledge seekers will know what I’m talking about
x46 Maxwell C. Bridges : please identify all instances of me promoting flat-earth
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George,
Yet another bot-ish reply. Kudos. Projecting your weaknesses onto me, I see. Otherwise armed with a URL to my blog [obtainable by the comment that anchors this FB discussion thread], please identify all instances of me promoting flat-earth. My blog has a search feature, and I have written about it tangentially.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
Along with the bot-ish reply, comes the bot-weasel move of avoiding the FGNW topic of discussion, avoiding editing a comment to make it clearer, and avoiding going to a website to copy-and-paste a paragraph into a comment.
Don't complain about ~me~ causing division within the 9/11 Truth Community. I'm following the truth, and if those so-called 9/11 Truthers can't do likewise, can't defend their premises, can't legitimately discredit mine, etc., then maybe they were really infiltrators and 9/11 Fakers and by no means "Truthers." That's what you seem to be: bot-fake.
//
x48 Nicholas George : your focus is akin to that type of disinformation campaign
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
I don’t think you’re promoting flat earth. I said your focus is akin, or parallel to that type of disinformation campaign. Freemasonic horseshit.
x50 Maxwell C. Bridges : scapegoat masons for the ills of the world
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George,
I happen to be a Master Mason. As an insider, I can attest to there being horseshit, but the biggest elephant dumps are those ignorant masses outside of Masonry trying to scapegoat masons for the ills of the world [often using centuries old defamation material proven a hoax that they just recycle.] All human institutions have horseshit, but being a world dominating influencing power isn't one of their horse apples, despite what our enemies will say [to hide their actual roles and scapegoat us.]
Ever hear of OCD? Maybe I got it, and it exhibits itself in my focus on 9/11 FGNW [and preserving my work myself.] Doesn't mean that my nuclear hobby-horse is wrong, you twit. If anything, by scope limiting my efforts, I'm given a better chance at accomplishing something needed in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
It is only a fluke that it also happens to expose "9/11 Fakers" and disinfo-bots. [Where is the requested copied paragraph from my links?]
//
x52 Tor Opdahl : Thermite is confirmed
2021-08-29
Thermite in use 911 is confirmed from the pouring furniss rivers from the towers, and from the chemical data from the dust. ... What the extreme heat in the basement came from, I am mot sure. I remenber some bottom colums with some clear cuts that suggested some planned takedown.
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : duped by crafty disinformation promoted by AE9/11 Truth
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Tor Opdahl, You have been duped by crafty disinformation promoted by AE9/11 Truth (and Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Neils Harrit, etc.) You wrote:
"Thermite in use 911 is confirmed from the pouring furniss rivers from the towers, and from the chemical data from the dust."
The chemical data from the dust does NOT confirm NT. Not from USGS, not from Paul Lioy et al. [Only in Dr. Jones' dust samples.] What all the studies found were a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. The USGS shows in its data tables Uranium and all its decay elements in correlated quantities [indicating fission].
As part of the NT propaganda promoted by AE9/11Truth, NT is supposedly the only substance that can create those tiny iron spheres, burn for months under the rubble pile, etc.
Except that when you do the high school level chemistry and math, you'd learn that the calculated amount of NT to create that amount of tiny iron spheres is massive. When you then calculate the amount of NT that was unspent from the pulverizing purpose and available in the debris pile to burn for months, the original amount is obscenely huge and very much not Occam Razor friendly.
Fourth generation nuclear devices are Occam Razor friendly.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Dr. Gsponer wrote about FGNW but doesn't write about 9/11. But I do.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
By the way, the FGNW argument is not mutually exclusive with any other premise. If you want to say NT cause the red-hot dripping from the towers, fine. But that doesn't mean it was the primary mechanism of destruction.
//
x56 Nicholas George : Judea was the longest leader of the original messianic church
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
Thank you for admitting your allegiances to masonry. Perhaps you’ll understand this then:
September was the seventh month of the year 1,959 years ago. Rome has added a couple of months to our calendar year after this "great reset" almost 2 millennia ago. The event I’m going to speak of is also the reason that time as we record it today (2021) was reset to a zero year by Rome. Ground Zero. perhaps an even bigger tragedy is that most people won’t understand what I’m talking about even though it’s that significant. Its OK, I have more faith in each of you then all the people you’ve trusted so far that haven’t given you this information yet. September, and the number "7", was the month and the number of significance that was dedicated to the "Lord of the harvest", "Saturn/Satan". Saturn is the 7th body in the solar system, and "the administrator".
(see the meanings of "Tav", the 22nd and final letter of the Hebrew alphabet, "the mark of Saturn" = the mark of Satan/the beast. It is the Saturnic cross worshiped at all churches and placed on the foreheads of the faithful on Ash Wednesday -"Odin’s day".)
The Beast, Saturn, is "the Administrator" over earth and our solar system. This is why the Knights of Malta chose building 7 (WTC7) as their counterintelligence headquarters in their tasks against the sovereignty and freewill of the American people on 9/11/2001. This is the hidden and original meaning behind the CIA’s choice of building #7 (WTC7), and its collapse following the Twin Towers’ collapse on 9/11/2001.
9/11, 20 years ago, was actually "7"/11 1,959 years ago. Both were the ultimate manifestation(s) of evil magic by the same ancient terrorist (Saturnian) organization. The original September 11th (inside job) tragedy was carried out the next day after Yom Kipper 7/10/0062 CE. Saint Paul’s and Saturnia/Rome’s original September 11th "great reset" signified the destruction of the original messianic movement, and in a very tangible way, the retarding of human freewill, and our overall mental and spiritual sovereignty and wellbeing.
One of the two most important people/figureheads in the first century of Judea was the longest leader of the original messianic church, "James the just". This is why he was given this name. There was no one in all of Judea who was considered to be more righteous in the first century. This is also why his assassination was so important to get right, using all aspects of Hermetic spiritual teachings in order to manifest the desired outcome on earth.
Even Caesar would not harm a hair on Jame’s head according to Roman literature. Obviously this presented a problem to Caesar, Herod "Christos" Agrippa, and St. Paul -Saturnia/Rome’s counterintelligence agent. This is why Paul was not harmed after the stoning of James, even though Paul originated the appeal to Ananus and Paul encouraged the illegal Sanhedrin, yet the high priest of the Jewish church was sacrificed/executed by Caesar in an act of pretend retribution to balance the hermetic magic of the moment.
These two assassinated personas (James & Ananus) were the "twin towers" of opposing spiritual influence, and both fell to the will of Saturnia/Rome’s Caesar and his Church of Sol Invictus (Saturn) on September 11th 62CE (which was 7.11.0062 at the time). This black magical plot helped to manifest Rome’s intended occulted magic against the horrified messianic followers of James The Just in a way that "iced" the messianic rebels, for the same intended purpose/effect that one would "ice the kicker" in football. This black magic didn’t stop the messianic rebels from rebelling, but it took away an important chunk of their righteousness and anger (necessary magic for success). This was done in exactly the same way, and for the exact same purpose, against a modern world’s righteous anger on 9/11. The modern Brotherhood(s) of Saturnia/Rome/"The Serpent" made it inappropriate for us to investigate or retaliate authentically/effectively. Sometimes that’s just enough black magic to turn somebody, who was already a bit of a coward in the first place, into full-blown cowardice. Well practiced occulted magic can end what would otherwise be a successful rebellion if the magic is practiced properly (Like in the fake raid on the capital building after the last fake US election). This is the kind of designer hermetic magic that squashes authentic rebellions and revolutions.
The original messianic movement led by James in the desert/wilderness at Qumran for 30 years after his brother’s crucifixion was then replaced with the satanic (adversarial inversion) "Pauline doctrine" that’s leading us off the the intellectual/spiritual cliff, producing the rotten bloody fruit on this vine that many see happening today. The fact that there is not one church that teaches the basis of the "teachings of righteousness" by James The Just clearly exposes the previously invisible walls of our spiritual and mental prison today. The reason that we find ourselves in this mental and spiritual prison is because of the original magic practiced on the original September 11th. Our Roman Satanic masters have just taken a page from their old playbook and played it again for another great reset in our lifetime. This is our chance to kick them in the nuts and take it all back. How do you do it? Knowledge. Knowledge knowledge knowledge. And then once you have acquired enough knowledge start sharing it with others, and teaching them how to use it in ways that are applicable to our struggle.
x58 Maxwell C. Bridges : latest database dumps of trivia
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, I am not very appreciative of your copy-and-paste efforts that do not aid you in the bot-test. Nope, not being on topic nor from any of the two reference links provided, is a big fail and keeps you in the bot-camp.
Because I don't think you are human, I'll not engage in responding to any of your latest database dumps of trivia.
//
x60 Nicholas George : the twin pillars, Joachim and Boaz
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
I’m the original author, and I don’t feel like writing that shit out from scratch each time, if that makes sense to you. I thought that you would have a more adept knowledge of the twin pillars, Joachim and Boaz, and you would be able to follow the course of study I am on. I wish I had a robot that could do the research and put it into words like I do. It would save me a lot of time, and we would have our revolution in human consciousness. I do believe that there are people that will read this thread that will gain from the understanding of history that I have tried to bring across to all of you. I think you also know that.
x62 Maxwell C. Bridges : if you weren't polluting this discussion with your distraction
2021-08-29
Dear Nicholas George, Maybe if you weren't polluting this discussion with your distraction, I would be willing to engage in your divergent conversation. Still might. Make a posting in Facebook and call my attention to it. Consider it another test that you're not a bot if you are able to make a Facebook posting. [Just copy and paste it, how hard is that?]
//
x64 Maxwell C. Bridges : title
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, Meanwhile, you're failing the initial simple tests brought forth here -- now numerous times -- to prove you're not a bot by demonstrating that you're able to navigate to a web page, copy some information, and bring it back here to discuss.
The subject from the first comment in this FB thread has been FGNW on 9/11.
Stay on topic. Or don't comment on this thread ever again. Geesh, I have half a mind to hide most of your postings under this thread just because they are blatant weasel moves that don't make a logically case for or against FGNW. They've mostly added nothing to the discussion.
//
x66 Bernie Saurez : why nobody should bother reading your blog
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges "Weasel manuevers? Is that all you got in the form of a rational discussion?"
Here, let me sum it up for you real quick as to why nobody should bother reading your blog, as why you have no credibility. This is a simple question with a yes or no answer. Were there Arab or Muslim conspirators involved in the hijackings of the four airliners for the 9/11 attacks?
x68 Maxwell C. Bridges : These patsies' (mostly Arabs) managed and manipulated by (Mossad) handlers
2021-08-29
Congratulations, dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, for having written the most stupid thing today! Yoo-hoo! You win!
You wrote:
"nobody should bother reading your blog, [because] you have no credibility."
If you don't visit my blog and this FGNW posting in particular (and downright brag about not doing it), you have no basis to judge my credibility. You are simply repeating your losing debate tactic from above in this thread of "giving book reports without reading the books in question."
Now ~THAT~ shoots your credibility in the foot, not mine.
Your stupidity shows, and it is downright embarrassing for me to have to continually point that out when I have been a sincere participate, both in the work on the blog and these discussions here. Sure, I've been gording you and your bot-friend, Mr. Nicholas George, but you both are clearly tag-teaming disinfo agents. What's your tell? An inabilility to follow links, discuss what's at the link, and stay on (FGNW) topic.
As for my credibility? Not needed for my work to stand up. And had you not been a lame-ass weasel in doing such basic skimming of my FGNW Prima Facie Case, you would see that it doesn't hinge on ~my~ credibility, but on the credibility of the many sources (with quotations and links) whose 9/11-tetris blocks I have simply chosen to orient in a different manner, with fewer gaps, to make the 9/11 FGNW case.
You asked about Arab or Muslim conspirators involved in the hijackings, so I am free to give my bat-shit crazy speculation into the matter.
Those identified allegedly as hijackers (I speculate) weren't the nicest or brightest of people and ran in questionable circles, and were easily monitored and managed and manipulated by (Mossad) handlers who were neighbors. Nope, they were groomed to be unwitting patsies. (I speculate) the crew and passengers were gassed and the aircraft flown by remote control on or about the moment the planes turned off their transponders, stopped responding to towers, and went off-course. [I don't rule out aircraft swapping, otherwise the FAA would have serial number matched debris pieces to the alleged commercial aircraft.]
Were the Arabs Muslim? Not practicing ones, if their taste for liquor, coke, and whores says anything. And their movements about the country and places (e.g., visits to Jack Abramoff's casino boat), their avoidance of FBI scrutiny despite FBI agents warnings to higher levels, their living a noticeable high life, flying lessons, etc.
These patsies' (mostly Arabs) consensual knowledge and active participation probably ended right after they boarded their planes.
https://rielpolitik.com/2021/06/19/mob-rule-the-secret-world-of-jack-abramoff-terrorists-torpedos-republican-muscle-by-daniel-hopsicker-flashback/
We've had security camera at airports since before the 1980's. Nobody spouting the official conspiracy has ever definitively shown all of the patsy hijackers and passengers boarding the planes, except for a few inconclusive frames.
I'll not speculate further into these patsies, because the subject of this thread is FGNW.
//
x70 Nicholas George : delete the thread when they’ve lost
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
Most people do delete the thread when they’ve lost the intellectual discussion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you did that. It is the ultimate surrender to cowardice. The hijackers were brought into the country by the CIA, not Mossad. I agree with you that the hijackers were Patsys, and probably weren’t even in the planes that hit the buildings. It’s a shame that you try to practice so much constraint over the discussion. It’s indicative that you are not really interested in motivating a revolution, but infighting within the truth research community instead. We’re supposed to be on the same team, but you are doing something else here. That should be obvious to any discerning mind that scans the thread. You better delete it before you are discovered, said the reptilian brain.
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : uttering the conclusions of which disinfo agents want to prevent the public from getting a whiff
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, You are blaming me for ~YOUR~ inability (and that of your Mr. Bernie Saurez) to have a reasoned, intellectual discussion (on 9/11 nuclear components)? How quaint!
Don't be giving me "on the same team" bullshit, because theoretically all 9/11 Truthers and particularly AE9/11Truth should be open-minded and willing to follow the 9/11 truth where ever it leads, and do proper research and analysis. But they are clearly not on "the team for truth" when they can't even (a) defend NT rationally or have it explain all of the evidence, or (b) legitimately take all forms of nuclear weapons off the table through research, proper scientific analysis, and logical arguments.
Don't get mad at me that the truths of my 9/11 hobby-horse expose how AE9/11Truth was infiltrated, what their line in the sand was (e.g., no nuke discussion whatsoever except those framed as strawmen), and the scientific sleight of hand that duped those in the 9/11 Truth Movement with nano-thermite.
What I'm doing here is giving you legitimately shit for being such a closed-minded, non-truth seeking moron who's too much of a duped shill to even read my deviant FGNW blog entry, let alone discuss its merits and faults. Some fucking truther, you are not.
What is obvious to any discerning minds scanning this thread is how much of a weasel you and Bernie Saurez are. What is so difficult about reading a blog posting that gathers many of the normal 9/11 pieces of evidence and utters the conclusions that the disinfo agents want to prevent the public from getting a whiff of: Zionists and neo-cons in high places in the US government and Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11?!!
Fuck, all I'm asking is for you two to debunk my premise legitimately. If proven wrong, I'll change my tune and offer public apologies for having led others astray with my bat-shit crazy speculation. But no, you two assholes are doing everything you can to weasel out of reading it, let alone rationally discussing it. [This has been a common factor among other disinfo agents and bots that I have run across in the 9/11 Truth space, making my patience grow very thin.]
I've already got this conversation saved so I can re-purpose it later, even if the owner of this posting and its discussions (Bernie-baby) decides to kill it, the most likely outcome from disinfo-agents who are handily losing the debate before it even gets started through your bot-ish actions and stoic "I don't need to read no stinkin' blog postings!" I have no legal obligation to remain nice or cordial to bots, non-human entities.
Attempt one of the bot tests given above, and prove me wrong. I'll apologize and take a different tone. Until then, you're losing and all latter-day lurker readers will readily see that and all that you did not do to stem that loss.
//
x74 Bernie Saurez : pouring furniss rivers
2021-08-29
Tor Opdahl "Thermite in use 911 is confirmed from the pouring furniss rivers from the towers,"
Okay, compared to what? What previous demolitions have you seen molten metal found in the rubble? Would it mean that thermite was also used in the 1993 WTC bombing if there was molten metal found?
https://youtu.be/07jvSvz5Lds
10. The 1993 Bombing Of The World Trade Center
x76 Maxwell C. Bridges : a valid deviant and most-likely option
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, stop being a weasel. Read my FGNW blog posting about a valid deviant and most-likely option for the destruction of the WTC and addresses a much wider swath of evidence than your precious super-duper nano-thermite.
It is no skin off the nose of FGNW if, say, the USGS found in their dust samples the same remnants for NT as Dr. Steven Jones did. But the fact is, they didn't, and neither did Paul Lioy et al and others. Read them closely, and this deceit will be clear; thoroughly stilted and munged affairs!
FGNW isn't being argued as a mutually exclusive option with NT: "either FGNW or NT, but not both." No, that's not being done at all (except on your side when you argue for NT.) What ~is~ being done by me is proving that FGNW were the primary means of destruction and NT was not, even if its usage could be proved (when really, it can't; I've looked at the reports and found their holes, and documented such in an earlier blog posting on FGNW.)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
It has lots of overlap with the other FGNW Prima Facie Case, but has value in legitimately slaughtering your nano-thermite sacred cow.
//
x78 Nicholas George : done more to destroy it
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
Anyone who disrespects architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is a fucking moron. They’ve done more for this cause than you will ever do. You’ve done more to destroy it then the average person has done for it.
x80 Maxwell C. Bridges : take no joy in exposing their defects and discrediting AE9/11Truth
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, As will be proven below, the disrespect of AE9/11Truth is deserved.
Please stop victim-shaming me! I am a vetted member of AE9/11Truth and take no joy in exposing their defects. Discrediting them, discredits myself and my reputation, because I have supported them, signed their petitions, shared their URLs online, and sung their praises.
I am not the one who put those defects in their works and efforts, glaring ones at that, self-destruct mechanisms that were built-in from the onset. I'm just a researcher and messenger who logically put the pieces together that have been staring us in the face.
It isn't ~my~ fault that the rabbit-hole of truth that I've followed doesn't just legitimately branch into FGNW as the most likely primary mechanism of destruction, but it also flags the gatekeepers positioned within various 9/11 Truth organizations who purposely misdirected the movement and the public into lesser truthful limited hang-out rabbit-hole branches that any objective observer would see do not address all of the evidence and destruction features. Of course they were aided by government funded (and inter-government cooperation) disinformation efforts (e.g., DEW, nukes, NPT@WTC, hollow towers, simVictims, etc.)
I sheepishly admit that I was an ardent fan-boy of more than one premise that turned out to be disinformation. Owing to my sincere seeking of truth, my open-mind, and my willingness to consider further analysis even after "conclusions in my mind" were initially made, I was force to evolve my beliefs and even recant some of them (with public apologies and while rescuing nuggets of truth).
Two disinformation examples near and dear to my heart are DEW and nukes.
I've debunk Dr. Wood's work legitimately: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. These were her premise's built-in defects. Yet DEW is closer to the truth than nano-thermite.
I've debunk most efforts that champions 9/11 nukes. They framed the weapons improperly, like with too much yield, too much fall-out, single nukes not multiple devices, placement and its effects not matching the observed destruction. They had nuggets of truth but little actual library research. And they often purposely argued their case poorly just so later these built-in self-destruct faults would quickly lead to its debunking, and then ~all~ forms of nuclear consideration would get wiped off the table of further (public) consideration. Classic strawman but played on multiple levels. The Russian Agent's Nuclear Hypothesis [Dimitri Khalezov] comes readily to mind. Yet mini-nukes are closer to the truth than nano-thermite.
Late-third / early-forth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) are the bastard hybrid marriage of nukes and DEW, and part of the larger disinformation game was for the public never to consider their nuptual as a valid thing. Technically, all FGNW are in the category of DEW.
Wouldn't you know it? AE9/11Truth's two FAQ's that allegedly debunk the disinformation efforts of Dr. Judy Wood's DEW and all forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement ~also~ have fatal built-in defects that in the end backfire and impact the organization's reputation for allowing such unscientific and untruthful efforts to manipulate the perceptions of its members, the public, and the world. Very brief specifics?
- The AE9/11Truth FAQ on Dr. Judy Wood's works gives no indication that its authors even read it; it has no quotes or references to her book or website; and it spends more than 40% of its meager word count plugging the nano-thermite limited hang-out. Completely ignores the evidence collected in Dr. Wood's work that any 9/11 theory-du-jour must address.
- The AE9/11Truth FAQ on 9/11 nuclear involvement has the built-in defect of framing the destruction as a "nuclear blast", too much yield, too much fall out, in classic strawman fashion. When they conclude that "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the WTC, I'm surprisingly in agreement. That's because 80% of the already tactical yield of a FGNW is in the releasing of highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion, which would exhibit very different destructive outcomes (e.g., molecular level destruction of content and a muted blast wave.) Surprise, the FAQ doesn't discuss any form of FGNW. The actual FAQ text is less than what is in the footnotes and comes to those valid conclusions at a high, general level that "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC". Supposedly the details to support the plain text conclusions were in the many footnotes, but upon inspection they were not. In many cases, the footnotes were a cherry-picked hit job on others and in particular on a long-standing 9/11 Truther, Jeff Prager, who has done much 9/11 nuclear analysis. When astute readers bore beyond the footnotes into the referenced source material, they discover much more valid content in the source that the FAQ omitted.
[One omission example: Jeff Prager shows from the USGS's own data tables on their analysis of the dust that Uranium and all of its decay elements are represented in correlated quantities, sample to sample. (FYI, NT is not.) USGS plain text omits mentioning Uranium let alone its decay elements and why they are present. The FAQ omits this research, because it is a clear indication of a fission process and is counter to their agenda of discrediting all nuclear means.]
So in conclusion, architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is entirely deserving of the disrespect that is dished out. Failure to follow the scientific rabbit-hole to its logical nuclear conclusions, failure to address in a cohesive manner all the evidence that leaks out all over that 9/11 had nuclear components,... these are damning to AE9/11Truth, but are not of my making. They are built-in defects as per their agenda to prevent the public from considering 9/11 nuclear devices.
Hey, the figurative nuclear fall-out of this public revelation could still tip public perceptions and lead to angry, radical change in various institutions and agencies and elected officials. Which is why in Facebook groups like this one, agents are always present to argue against 9/11 nuclear involvement from that dubious debate position of ~not~ reading the FGNW Prima Facie Case.
//
x82 Nicholas George : putting them towards mini-nukes is too little too late
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
Changing the murder weapon does not change the identity of the murderer and the motive. Infighting, and the dragging of our feet, have defanged and declawed the effectiveness of our movement in making any arrests over the last two decades. Now we are at a point where we have to choose between a dirty diaper over our face, or the Aids (part two jab. Taking our collective minds off of the fact that our revolution should’ve started yesterday, and instead putting them towards mini-nukes is too little too late. In fact, even the discussion of 9/11 at a time where we are within a few years of suffering 6 trillion casualties, can be nothing other than a mistake and a distraction of our most effective potential at this time. Keep in mind that nobody cares more about busting the bastards that got away with 9/11 than I do. I do understand the importance of resetting one’s priorities given an ever-changing timeline. What say you to that?
x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Infighting"? Has been purposeful all along
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, A man is stabbed in the kitchen and dies. (A) The woman used a Cutco knife near her cutting board as the most available self-defense weapon to kill her surprise attack. (B) The woman forged the knife in a garage kiln, honed the blade to a perfect sharpness over weeks, and the damage inflicted was like a sewing machine run amok over her victim's body.
As this illustrates, changing the murder weapon does matter.
And changing the 9/11 weapons to be nuclear not only explains a much wider swath of evidence (that NT can't explain), but also reduces the suspect list significantly with its motives and agenda while explaining the ever expanding cover-up and infiltration of 9/11 Truth organizations to steer the message.
"Infighting"? Has been purposeful all along, with purposeful disinfo premises meant to spur that.
Where else have you seen a 9/11 Truther promoting FGNW? I'm the lone nut.
But your reaction to my premise and the infighting you seem to decry, should not have been, because you fought ~me~ and not the premise, which you have steadfastly refused to even review and validate or not.
Don't pawn the infighting on me. I have been duped by many of the standard consensus 9/11 Truth until I further researched it, found it lacking, and discovered the major omissions.
//
x86 Nicholas George : lady in your scenario who did the stabbing got away with it 20 years ago
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges
Judy Wood already cracked open this line of questioning years ago, and just like all of the other theories, we never got a trial in which to prove any of them. The fact that we can’t get a trial or a real investigation, has always been the original problem. You are trying to hold some kind of social trial on DARPA’s Facebook platform, and it only serves to divide and conquer a movement that should be converging today regarding revolution. That’s where were at just in case you weren’t aware of it yet. We are at the point where if we don’t revolt ASAP, our children will never know what sovereignty and natural immunity looked like It doesn’t matter if Judy Wood was the perfect person to do it or not, was a agent of misinformation or not, and it doesn’t matter if her theories were wrong. It doesn’t matter if The Universal Church of Saturnia brought the buildings down with thermite, planes, or a giant magnifying glass in space. What matters is that the lady in your scenario who did the stabbing got away with it 20 years ago and just now the queen of the kingdom leading a massive depopulation campaign. She’s actually the one in charge of deciding whether a trial or new investigation is possible or would even be recognized by the media the murderer also is in control of. Now she’s distributing the equivalent of the 9/11 planes in the form of experimental shots that more than half the country has already taken into their arms. These people are going to start dropping dead of aids part two soon, but what is your plan?
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : trauma of 9/11 was played over and over, and Covid is no different
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Nicholas George, This is where we find common ground. The PTB won 9/11, just like they won all the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, JFK Jr., etc. They ran out the clock. They gummed the investigations. They had the deep pockets to pay agents to sow disinformation that duped many of us and, yes, serves on purpose to divide the movement. The PTB ran out the clock for almost 20 years, until the next bigger event (COVID) makes talking about governmental 9/11 criminal activities unimportant.
I admit it. I'm burned out on 9/11, and frustrated with most of the US citizens for not ever questioning it. Worse, they willingly beat the drums of war and put the "we support the troops" bumper stickers on their cars WITHOUT ever determining whether the wars were just. Nevermind that woke truthers found their PNAC agendas and told everyone what the plans were and are, and is it any surprise that is what they accomplished?
Before I talk briefly about COVID, let me discuss even more briefly Dr. Judy Wood in the context that you mentioned. I've already provided my assessment on why she was a disinfo agent through a legitimate review of her book. Her court case? It was known that she didn't have standing to present the case. She did anyway, and the loss was expected, but it served the PTB in a "double-jeopardy" kind of a way and scaring away other claims that had more standing. [Don't get me wrong. Lasers from space exist, but owing to the properties of the atmosphere and the various wavelengths of EM energy, only certain wavelengths transmit well through the air. Unlike targeted military missiles or aircraft whose fuel and/or cargo help a laser destroy them, the towers had none of that, meaning even more energy would have had to be injected and available at the source.] The point is, even if a Bush relative on the judicial bench threw out Dr. Wood's case owing to standing, her research and premise would have been torn apart as being wrong and would have lost her the case.
On the COVID theme, yes, it is real; yes, it can kill old and/or ill-health people; yes, it can be a nasty illness to survive if you get it bad or it compounds pre-existing ill health. But the survival rate is high, even without the vaccine. Yes, maybe mask wearing in public stores and other confined spaces with lots of people is prudent, and I'm finding it great when I don't want to smile in public. Just wearing masks more rigorously and smart socializing (e.g., more "isolate, Netflix, and chill") was proven to bring down the infection rates.
The 9/11 lessons applied to COVID and not taking the event at face value. Just like for 9/11, the COVID origin story and gain-of-function research -- one step removed from bio-weapon design -- needs to be brought into the spotlight.
Just like 9/11 legitimized torture in the public eye ("because good Americans torture bad foreigners to protect good Americans at home") and led directly to the militarization of the US police with Israeli-taught crowd control tactics, COVID gives many more opportunities for those crowd control tactics to be brutally enforced... for not wearing a mask, for not being vaccinated, for being out without permission. And here I thought that only climate change and the mass migration of peoples would find an outlet for the militarized police.
Disclaimer: Although not practicing it now as prescribed, I was raised in Christian Science and know that it is one religion or spiritual camp (of many) which has been proven effective at healing, since 1865 and documented by their weekly and monthly publications. I'm glad that there is a first amendment right to freedom of religion, which protects spiritual adherents from having to take lots of injections that they don't put their beliefs in. Belief is fundamental to healing, regardless of the mechanisms chosen.
Setting aside the religious bent and looking at medicine scientifically, it is very much ~not~ rocket science where math and physics can lead to exact answers that repeatedly work and where most of the factors are well understood. Medicine is no where near as precise, and the knowledge of the bodily systems making up the whole and of the affects of elements injected into that system is not nearly as well understood. My favorite example: "If doctors and the medical research were really so great, they could give me a pill to make only the nail of my pinky finger grow, and not any of the other finger or toe nails, and no other side-effects on the body." They don't have that, which is made clear whenever you hear or see the disclaimers on medicine. Even the COVID legislation indemnifies vaccine makers from retribution or legal action, if found inadequate.
Scientifically looking at traditional vaccines, whereas data over time might validate the science, that is not the complete picture. Robert Kennedy Jr. has valid complaint points. The disinformation gambit played out is that the science is on the individual laboratory vaccine against X, but the implementation loads the same injection with other crap used for, say, preserving and storage. And they also gang the vaccines together. A crapshoot of badness, but whatever and has decades of research, and please ignore the rise in OCD, ADHT, autism, and such.
Scientifically looking at the COVID mRNA vaccine, on paper the best solution yet. But the deceit is equating the completely different nature of mRNA medicine to the technology of those old school vaccines. Day and Night. I despise the hype "well, vaccines wiped out (name a disease), so you can be assured this brand-new technology that we're misnaming a 'vaccine' is going to be just as effective." As Bill Gates said (paraphrased), "if it takes two years to run the studies to prove effectiveness, it still takes two years."
Within the first year after 9/11, I knew we were not going to get eventually exact answers, but I expected the detailed scientific investigations to happen, to start promptly, to be complete, and to be truthful in scope and conclusions. But while that turned into a farce first behind the scenes, what got me angry during that first year was the corporate media hype about war(s), the rush to war, the excessive patriotism "to support our troops" and the stupidity exposed of the US citizenry in not recognizing that preventing an unjust and illegal war (and its torture) is more patriotic than the ass-kissing of returning veterans and bumper stickers glorifying it.
Similarly with COVID. Lessons learned from 9/11 include controlling the internet and the narrative even more. The PTB can't have medical professionals running around like 9/11 Truthers who would crowd-source government reports as soon as they were released and rip them to shreds on the internet for their major flaws and mistakes. Trump was the needed blatantly lying bastard at the top, so that corporate censorship could creep into use and acceptance, and later thereby prevent alternative-from-the-official COVID narratives from flourishing. I got banned from posting comments to Medium.com, because I mentioned "COVID" and "bio-weapon" together in the same sentence, which algorithms then flagged as going against a new buried policy against such discussion.
Their posting policy, in line with corporate media messaging, fear-mongers the hell out of getting the vaccine. "Put on your mask and take your Covid vaccine for everyone's well-being, just like after 9/11 taking your shoe off and submitting to body scans at airports was for everyone's well-being."
The trauma of 9/11 was played over and over, and Covid is no different. Keep the fear pressure on.
With 9/11, the attack [to cover over the gold heist from WTC-4 vaults, the heist from WTC-6 vaults, the destroying of SEC records in WTC-7, the destroying of the ONI agents and their records investigating the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon spending] had short-term financial motivations, which deliberately led to long-term ones in the foreign wars waged in the name of 9/11 for oil, natural gas, and opium.
With Covid, today we are not paying for vaccines, because the government is paying the vaccine (and Covid testing) manufacturers for us (which will soon change), but they do it by having the Fed print more money (for all the things needed, infrastructure bill, so we'll be paying down the road with inflation.
//
x90 Thomas Botch : nuclear detonation could not be slowed down to include making molten metal pour out from upper floors
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges I lived 6 miles away - pretty sure a nuclear detonation even if specially designed could not be slowed down to include making molten metal pour out from upper floors - my uncles and cousins on the rubble as iron workers saw evidence of molten slag - they didn't have to dig for nuclear made glass ... frankly they likely used both.
x92 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thought experiment: How many of the FGNW devices worked as designed to their full expected yield, and how many fizzled?
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Thomas Botch, I assume that you haven't read my premise to know how FGNW deviate from the nuclear devices depicted in old Hollywood movies. In my premise, I suggest at least 4 FGNW per detonation level separated by 10-20 floors. Their mounting locations were on the outer side of the central core aimed away from that core, as demonstrated by the temporary "spires" that briefly remained standing while the rest of the building dustified around it.
The FGNW devices had a small conventional chemical explosive charge to kick start the fission stage. [They were small, but could be heard by eye-witnesses and cameras.] This fission stage was not designed for destruction, but for generating the requisite heat for the fusion stage. If all went well, the fusion stage would release in a targeted fashion [cone-shaped fanning out upwards] the highly energetic neutrons.
[Thought experiment: When the highly energetic neutrons passed through content and left behind energy -- in the form of really high heat -- deep within and all over the molecule structures of that content, what would be the effect? Recall the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres measured in everyone's dust samples, indicating a really hot heat source.]
[Wild-ass bat-shit crazy speculation] Plane hits WTC-1 face and disturbs one of the four FGNW near the impact level. Fires ignite the kick-starter charge that initiates the fission stage designed for heat. But then for any number of reasons from the crash, this one FGNW device "fizzles;" it doesn't make it to its full expected yield. This could be well before and then even precluding the fusion stage. Gee, this heat would be sufficient to prevent survivors from passing through that level. Heat and other radiated badness of a fizzling nuke could entice survivors to jump to their deaths. Heat from the fizzling nuke "could cause molten metal to pour out from the upper floors."
Thought experiment: How many of the FGNW devices worked as designed to their full expected yield, and how many fizzled? Survivors in a lower stairwell could be from a failed device. The under-rubble hot-spots burning for months could be from a failed device.
The evidence of molten slag are easily explained by these FGNW devices. Exactly, they didn't have to dig for nuclear made glass... but it existed too.
//
x94 Thomas Botch : thermite played a big part as did the Mossad B-thing people
2021-08-29
Maxwell Bridges not really because you so bashed thermite as a component of the False Flag that you came across rather intellectually totalitarian - however I do concur that a small novel nuke below could be very formative in the collapse ... me personally I hold three NJ teachers licenses to teach Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics at the HS level and have 256 total credits including a Master of Science (work at UPENN, NJIT and Stevens.)
Not that that matters too much but yes I do think thermite played a big part as did the Mossad B-thing people ... any way good day on the matter.
x96 Tor Opdahl : a Au When C poison code to play on later
2021-08-29
Hello Trolls. I got clear sources and research from before this came: Very interesting information. Hopefully this is not a Au When C poison code to play on later, like some people seems to be attempted discredited by storage of some false origin quotes. ... The quotes "Spiritual Deodorant" and "A White Swan" that I claimed came from Jeff Bridges in my previous comment, is only partly correct, since it comes from the movies RIPD and The Contender, Sometimes you can kill a man without firing a single shot. ... Better to say Zionism code movie origin of the quotes then. But Jeff Bridges is a lead role in these, willingly knowingly, and quote origin is then much correct. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4264348677016644&id=100003246617173&fs=0&focus_composer=0&m_entstream_source=timeline
x98 Maxwell C. Bridges : Are you really a Truther? Do you really follow Truth where it needs to go?
2021-08-29
Dear Mr. Thomas Botch, I do not argue the mutual-exclusivity of FGNW, and it would be no skin off its nose if something like nano-thermite were involved. However, on the flip side, those at the core of AE9/11Truth do essentially argue (not in so many words) that "super-duper nano-thermite worked alone to cause these wonderous destructions." How so?
Because AE9/11Truth purposely have not done any research, nor allowed any discussions, into what other destructive mechanisms were involved EVEN after being cornered:
(1) That NT, as an incendiary, didn't have the brisance needed for the observed pulverization. So Dr. Steven Jones then speculated it would needed to have been mixed with something else like RDX that neither he nor AE9/11Truth conveniently attempt to find in their dust samples, using a lame "sell-by date" excuse. [At the late date when it was brought to their attention, they were worried that maybe traces of the helper mechanisms expired from the dust and couldn't be measured. They feared such a truthful revelation of "nothing else in the dust" would be used against them by the OCTer's for their gravitational collapse. In reality, their fear was that Uranium and its decay elements documented by the USGS as being in the dust would get attention if they started looking for NT's helper mechanism.]
(2) That NT, although attributed to six spikes in the hot release of gas from the pile, could not have maintained the hot-spots between those spikes that burned for months. Dr. Steven Jones as much stated, "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite." As mentioned in #1, they didn't go looking for NT's helper in the dust to explain pulverization, but they also didn't go looking for what maintained the hot-spots.
It's as if they knew the answer was nuclear weapons and were tasked with suppressing this public revelation at every turn. In one of my comments under this posting but a different thread, I gave my scathing reviews of the two FAQ's that try to debunk Dr. Wood's DEW and nuclear devices. They were clever disinformation efforts, but do not stand up to scrutiny as authoritative efforts owing to deceit in both their scope-limited objectives and execution.
Here's something you need to ask yourself: Are you really a Truther? Do you really follow Truth where it needs to go?
If so, you're going to have to come to the realization that the 9/11 Truth Movement was infiltrated and manipulated from many directions. AE9/11Truth was no exception.
//
Part 2: FGNW Discussions with Eric Sandstrom, Bob Byron, Jess Baldock
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : Architects & Engineers analysis on "explosives" is both weak and scope-limiting
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
You wrote:
"because no other organization has exposed the flaws in the official story as Architects & Engineers/ Richard Gage has i simply think the disinformation campaign Centered around the Pentagon likes to get organizations/people like this that are trusted, the ones that have done brilliant work, the ones that have proven the towers came down by Explosives."
CORRECTION: Architects & Engineers proved that energy had to be added to take the towers down, but their analysis on "explosives" is both weak and scope-limiting.
I did my research, found the FLAWS in their works, and provide an alternative explanation.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x102 Eric Sandstrom : a little over the top for me bringing God into the equation
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
I opened up your link I see you have written a lot of stuff it’s a little over the top for me bringing God into the equation when I know you don’t even believe in God as described in the Bible .
As I remember are you not like a seventh Day Adventist? I could be totally wrong .
But what I do remember clearly when it comes to The Bible, you are Totally hostile to many truths. I remember this very well about you.
When it comes to Architects & Engineers/Richard Gage , Nobody makes it clear like Him and his organization shows that the towers were brought down by explosives.
That’s good enough in coming against the official account.
An Architects guide I have seen for many years now , and is simply the best I’ve ever seen, Have you ever watched these presentations , there’s many of them. And they just stop the mouth of anybody Believe in the official account
Richard has done most amazing work
I’m not gonna go back-and-forth dancing with you on this thread.
I don’t doubt more than just standard use of explosives & nano thermite Helped to bring down the towers. Though I haven’t gone through your link I’m sure you may be tapping in on some great truths adding to what Richard has done. But I’m quick to think what you bring is speculation and as I remember “an architects guide” there is no speculation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYAjSYRFs4M
9/11: An Architect's Guide | Part 1: World Trade Center 7 (2/4/21 webinar - R Gage)
YOUTUBE.COM
9/11: An Architect's Guide | Part 1: World Trade Center 7 (2/4/21 webinar - R Gage)
x104 Maxwell C. Bridges : Don't bring the Bible into the discussion; working on my opus
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Sandstrom,
Don't bring the Bible into the discussion, because it just torpedoes your case that you might be objective and rational. Moreover, I get to use it as a second data point in your trend line to being a duped fool unable to think for himself. The first data point is this nonsense about the towers being brought down by explosives, a case that even A&E9/11 Truth does NOT do.
This isn't to say that explosives weren't involved. Hell, in my premise, a small conventional charge is used as the kickstarter for the fission stage of a late-3rd generation nuclear weapon (FGNW), whose purpose was not destruction but to generate the heat required for the fusion stage of the same. The fusion stage (of multiple FGNW, minimum 4 per detonation level) release their highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (cone shaped, aimed upwards).
Don't take my word for it. You can read the peer-reviewed scientific paper on the subject published in a reputable science journal, and other works by the same authors in the decade leading up to 9/11. ... Which then means, Dr. Steven Jones and A&E9/11 Truth have foisted upon you a major omission in their efforts that Dr. Andre Gsponer's work (or the work he describes) are missing.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
I'm working on my opus, which necessarily takes detours through the disinformation foisted by others.
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x106 Bob Byron : better than any BULLSH*T you bring into the conversation
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
" but their analysis on "explosives" is both weak and scope-limiting.'
it seems to me the NIST leaders and Bazant are the ones "weak and scope limiting" when it comes to SUPPORTING what they assert as truth...
..and are the ONLY ONES here whom need to support.
all anyone has to do is suggest a physical impossibility, and then turn to the NIST LEADERS and BAZANT for their answers.....
i.e. the ?natural ?unassisted collapses, X3...on 9-11
..but the NIST LEADERS and Bazant are allowed to LIE....and walk away.
so rather than QUESTION those who question the OFFICIAL STORY.....
how about you direct your feeble attempts to the rightful party....
i.e. those pushing that what we see on 9-11 is what happens between the natural process of structural resistance VS gravity.
no....that's not your 'job' here...is it...??
.
"don't bring the Bible into the discussion"
why not?...it's just as good, or better than any BULLSH*T you bring into the conversations.
x108 Maxwell C. Bridges : the major pieces of 9/11 disinformation originated from government sources
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
Whereas you are correct that the NIST leaders and Bazant are "weak and scope limiting", if you can recognize that fact, then it should also be clear to thinking individuals where A&E9/11 Truth pulled the same trick.
Here's some examples:
Dr. Jones malframed nuclear devices in his efforts to "debunk their use" by giving them huge yields, huge radiation fallouts, and not ever mentioning late-3rd and early-4th generation nuclear devices. On the NT front -- a limited hang-out --, the most they can prove is that NT might have been the cause for six spikes in the output gases off of the smoldering rubble pile, but Dr. Jones clearly stated at different points in time (paraphrased) "NT didn't have the brisance for the observed destruction, so could have been mixed with RDX or something" [AND THEN proceeded to NOT test for them] and that (not paraphrased) "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT" [AND THEN proceeded to NOT investigate what that something was.]
A&E9/11 Truth rely on Dr. Jones' stilt for the most part, except for these two notable contributions. In their FAQ intended to debunk Dr. Wood and some of her premises, the disinfo agents did not crack Dr. Wood's book or website, made no references to specifics in her work, and literally spent more than 40% of their meager word count promoting NT.
More egregious, in A&E9/11 Truth's FAQ intended to debunk nuclear involvement, they frame the discussion as "nuclear blasts". "Blasts" assumes sudden and violent changes in air pressure as the medium for the destruction, and would indeed have spread radiation badness and been very loud. The issue is, FGNW do not use air (pressure) as the medium for destruction. No, FGNW get more of a direct energy coupling, because one variant thereof release from the fusion stage highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion; they aren't pushing air around; the neutrons pass through air easily and into materials leaving energy (generally in the form of heat) behind. This would not have noisy.
You need to get off of your high 9/11 horse and recognize that controlling the message -- even to the point of infiltrating various 9/11 Truth Movements -- was not above or below what the PTB would do. What with the recent Qanon extension to their lying ways, it has become clear to me that most of the major pieces of 9/11 disinformation originated from government sources. This would be "NPT @ WTC", hollow-towers, deep underground nukes, Nano-thermite, ...
//
x110 Jess Baldock : the same criminals behind 911
2021-03-05
Of course the dis-info comes from the same criminals behind 911.
x112 Maxwell C. Bridges : to which disinfo are you referring?
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
to which disinfo are you referring? //
x114 Jess Baldock : nonsense theories like "holograms" and "space beams"
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
That was fast, is this your full time job? I am talking about the dis-info nonsense theories like "holograms" and "space beams". Like that Judy Wood garbage you mentioned.
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : they could have debunked Dr. Wood's work, but they didn't. They didn't even look at it objectively.
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
You have a reading comprehension problem. Whereas I did mention Dr. Judy Wood, it was meant to shed light on the disinformation efforts of A&E9/11 Truth, which are subtle but still present.
I mean, they could have debunked Dr. Wood's work, but they didn't. They didn't even look at it objectively.
I'm sure you haven't read my blog article or blog postings, so I'll save you some time: I debunk Dr. Wood legitimately. It was on the second pass of her book that the deceit came into view: lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, and very shitty research into nuclear devices.
I haven't been in the Woodsian DEW camp for quite some time. That being said, she is still closer to the truth than Dr. Jones's NT. Late-3rd generation nuclear weapons and all fourth generation nuclear weapons are all technically in the DEW category.
For the record, holograms exist, but can't be scaled to the extent necessary to fool a large audience -- some with cameras -- from so many different angles as was 9/11. And it turns out, those who promote holograms on 9/11 also lie about the validity of two different sets of radar data that are within tolerances and over which the flight path of the planes captured in a few dozen videos align.
As for "space beams", hell, they exist too. However, there are factors like effective frequencies for energy transfer, effective frequencies for transmission through the atmosphere, and energy required at the source that make "space beams" impractical for 9/11 (as well as the California forest fires.) But because I did my research and published my raw findings, I know that airborne lasers (ABL) -- mounted in military versions of standard aircraft -- are a real thing. These would have been much more likely in use with the California fires (if someone wants to go down that rabbit-hole), but were not used on 9/11. Why? Because it is one thing to target a high energy beam on a target with both an explosive payload and explosive fuel to take advantage of a missile's or plane's composition. But it is entirely a different matter in terms of energy to target a structure without such explosive niceties in the mix to help with the destruction.
I've been around the 9/11 block several times, and was duped by many different premises until my persistence in researching exposed their deceit.
//
x118 Jess Baldock : A&E is your target to label as dis-info
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
Save it. A&E is your target to label as dis-info and your not fooling anybody.
If you have been around the block, why not tell who privatized Stewart Air Force Base and when? It's quite important given the fact that flights 11 and 175 c… See More
x120 Maxwell C. Bridges : Damn straight, A&E9/11 Truth is my target for the valid label of being disinformation!
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
Damn straight, A&E9/11 Truth is my target for the valid label of being disinformation! I can and have proven it, but you wouldn't know that, because reading comprehension has already been identified as one of your weaknesses and you have yet to visit my blog article that anchors this thread at the top level. Doesn't leave your objectivity with legs to stand on.
And this is further demonstrated by your inability to stay on topic, with you now throwing about flight numbers 11 and 175, as if they somehow exonerate Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, David Chandler, A&E9/11 Truth, etc. for the way they steered discussions away from the truth that 9/11 had nuclear components.
So, if you want to make this into a productive conversation with you maybe learning a thing or two, (1) Go to my blog article, (2) skim it, (3) expand all and look for names, like "Jones" and "Gsponer", (4) go to the peer-reviewed article on FGNW. At least know what grounds my position.
//
May be an image of text
4 Examples of "Bought" Science
- Tabacco industry
- Sugar industry
- Coca-Cola
- Monsanto
x122 Jess Baldock : the people that did it
2021-03-05
Let's talk about the people that did it. Tell us more about the inability to stay on topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk
9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!
YOUTUBE.COM
x124 Bob Byron : the GOVERNMENT scientists said this act is from GRAVITY
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
"You need to get off of your high 9/11 horse and recognize that controlling the message "
we know the 'controlling' message.… See More
May be an image of outdoors and text that says 'twenty years ago, the GOVERNMENT scientists said this act is from GRAVITY pretending to be explosive force for the FIRST, SECOND and third time in structural/fire prevention history. They said this while they kept REAL structural Engineers off the airways, questioning and stating this is something else. that the Gov. Scientists NEVER HAD TO PROVE! they lied and were allowed to 'walk away' Today the GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS are claiming another FIRST TIME EVENT. ....again, while keeping REAL Doctors and Scientists OFF the TV'
x126 Maxwell C. Bridges : Among the PTB are Zionists and hence Israel
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
Among the PTB are Zionists and hence Israel.
In my opinion, 9/11 was a joint operation with (a) leadership over US military and agencies (e.g., Cheney and the neo-cons) to keep the military bogged down in exercises and distractions, to prevent the FBI from following its leads that should have exposed the patsy hijackers sooner, and to slow walk the cover-up; and (b) Israeli Mossad who did boots the ground efforts, handled the patsies, etc.
Let us not forget the Israel is a nuclear state and always seems to have their hands deep into US arsenals, whereby them installing US design FGNW isn't so far fetched, at least at the towers. WTC-7, on the other hand, was a secure facility for the SEC, the FBI, and the CIA. I could go either way on whether a US agent or Israeli agent did the install there.
The Zionists have for over a century exercised pressure where ever they could to achieve their ends. Old news on this front is the very creation of Israel itself and the genocide it still implements against Palestinian people, which wouldn't be possible without American support. The USA PATRIOT ACT gave Israel a get-out-of-jail free card for anything associated with 9/11. So, yeah, that is a huge tell right there.
Others cover these topics better, like Kevin Ryan ("The Other Nineteen") and Christopher Bollyn (Israel).
//
x128 Eric Sandstrom : Architects & Engineers as pulling tricks
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
You wrote:
“Dear Mr. Jess Baldock, to which disinfo are you referring? //“
I read the first paragraph above where you referred to Architects & Engineers as pulling tricks. So more than likely the dis-info Jess
referred to is your own
x130 Maxwell C. Bridges : identified exactly where A&E9/11 Truth has been deceitful
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
I've done my homework and identified exactly where A&E9/11 Truth has been deceitful. I'm working on my 9/11 Opus where this will be made more public, but I've already given you the gist of it: they did lame and unscientific efforts in an attempt to debunk Dr. Wood's work and any form of nuclear involvement, plus they are supportive of the NT limited hang-out that cannot go the distance in explaining all of the anomalies. And this is in addition to several NT/A&E9/11Truth players having kind of wonky support for the OCT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
How far have you read into Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed work on Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons?
(a) Let the omission of this information [as but one example] from the works of 9/11 Truth Leaders (and in particular A&E9/11 Truth) be as gentle as a 2x4 smacked up side your head to get you to see.
(b) Let your inability to be objective and review those efforts posted be a 2x4 smacked up side the head of anybody who thinks you'd be more sane and open-minded to science/research, because your religious bent already makes you a gullible little puppy with no credibility.
//
x132 Eric Sandstrom : there’s no organization like Architects & Engineers
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
I read the very beginning of this and in no way has
Architects & Engineers been deceitful,? rather there’s no organization that has exposed And continues to expose the flaws in the official story like Architects & Engineers.
x134 Maxwell C. Bridges : Let me spell it out for you again
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
I am a vetted member of A&E9/11 Truth. Let me spell it out for you again two very simple ways that they have been deceitful.
[1] The FAQ #3 on Dr. Judy Wood. Don't interpret this complaint as me championing Woodsian DEW. However, their FAQ to debunk a book and website with far-reaching topics did not reference a single section from either. The word count was already low. Quoting me from 2014: "Of the FAQ #3's terse ~2,600 words, only a mere ~1,500 words (57%) were devoted to the topic of DEW itself and have zero references to anything specific in Dr. Wood's work. [Another case of a book report without having the book.] The remaining 43% went off topic and into the weeds with a distraction into NT."
[2] Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth FAQ #15 only debunks a "nuclear blast", and that in a stilted and underhanded way that ignored huge areas from Jeff Prager while focusing on minutia. FAQ #15 does not debunk nuclear involvement, and most certainly doesn't mention FGNW.
If you use "Expand All" and then search for "x20", you'll get all the gory details about A&E9/11 Truth's issues. And get this, the conversation was with Mr. Craig McKee himself.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/remnants-of-truth-shadows.html
[3} NT doesn't address all of the anomalies, on purpose.
I'm sure there are more examples, but these are the glaring ones.
//
Remnants of Truth & Shadows
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x136 Eric Sandstrom : you support Judy Wood after she comes against the fact that thermite was found?
2021-03-05
Maxwell Bridges
And you support Judy Wood after she comes against the fact that thermite was found? That’s pretty telling Re You, thanks for sharing.
It is no wonder Respected people standing for the truth at the Pentagon have blocked you
x138 Maxwell C. Bridges : You know what was found in the dust by USGS?
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
I love how you demonstrate your piss-poor reading comprehension. Case in point: identify where I have ever stated (a) that I support Dr. Judy Wood and (b) that I continue to support Dr. Wood! ... I'll wait. And please, don't stumble upon anything from the last decade where my published words LEGITIMATELY debunk Dr. Wood's work.
Thermite found in the dust?!! Whose dust?
"Not documented in the USGS Survey of the dust in the tables or explanatory text, nor by the RJLee Group, nor by Paul Lioy et al, nor by Dr. Steven Jones. The latter has never tested his samples for chemical explosives and A&E9/11Truth refused to test when brought to their attention. The true findings from the dust samples were (a) a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres, and (b) the radioactive and decay elements in proportional quantities as signature to fission/fusion devices (appeared in tables but never addressed in text of the USGS Report.)"
You know what was found in the dust by USGS?
"The United States Geological Survey (USGS) study on the dust documents not only all of the trace elements of nuclear devices, including their expected decay elements. And the exact same report has all the elements of NUCLEAR COVER-UP because these elements were only mentioned in the tables, not in any plain-text discussion."
Yet A&E9/11 Truth never mentions this, fool.
What about tritium?
Look it up. It is the building block of all late-third/early-fourth generation nuclear weapons. Here's some research that I did, but you didn't but you still can.
"In December 1998, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced that the U.S. planned to begin producing tritium for its nuclear weapons in commercial nuclear power plants. This decision overturned a fifty-year policy of keeping civilian and military nuclear production processes separate. Tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, is needed to turn A-bombs into H-bombs, and the commercial nuclear power plants that are to be modified to produce tritium are called ice condensers. This book provides an insider's perspective on how Richardson's decision came about, and why it is dangerous.Kenneth Bergeron shows that the new policy is unwise not only because it undermines the U.S. commitment to curb nuclear weapons proliferation but also because it will exacerbate serious safety problems at these commercial power facilities, which are operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority and are among the most marginal in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of the TVA's request to modify its plants for the new nuclear weapons mission should attract significant attention and opposition.Tritium on Ice is part expose, part history, part science for the lay reader, and part political science. Bergeron's discussion of how the issues of nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear reactor safety have become intertwined illuminates larger issues about how the federal government does or does not manage technology in the interests of its citizens and calls into question the integrity of government-funded safety assessments in a deregulated economy."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243492655_Tritium_on_Ice_The_Dangerous_New_Alliance_of_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Nuclear_Power
//
Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power
RESEARCHGATE.NET
x140 Maxwell C. Bridges : EP Haidner did an awesome job of "follow the money"
2021-03-05
Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
Thank you for posting that video, "9/11 Conspiracy Solved". I'm glad that at as early as 1:40, the narrator mentions EP Haidner, who did an awesome job of "follow the money" and to prove huge monetary motivations for 9/11.
//
Part 3: FGNW Disucssions with Jon Howland, David Peacock, Gary H Camp
x142 Maxwell C. Bridges : Susan Lindauer was fed some previously unknown nuggets of truth
2022-02-10
In my experience with Susan Lindauer, she was fed some previously unknown nuggets of truth or was allowed to expose them in exchange for being a stop-gap on truthful rabbit-holes that went much deeper.
For instance (paraphrased), she claims that her supervisors ordered her not to come back to NY around 9/11, owing to "a nuclear event" about to go down. Consider that a nugget of truth, and there might have been a couple more.
But did she ever expand upon that? Research it further? Actually obtain model numbers for the devices used? Used her leverage while she was still a CIA insider to get info? No. She drops the nugget, and then parades the party line on other OCT elements without much depth. Weak and ineffective. [Exactly what the PTB ordered.]
I mean, she exhibits the traits of many "captured" 9/11 truthers by "going thus far, and no further."
At the very least, she (and Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Fetzer) could have stumbled upon this peer-reviewed effort published in a reputable science journal:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
So, in conclusion, I think Ms. Lindauer is still sometimes part-time on the company payroll.
//
x144 Jon Howland : how low is the radiation on these 4th generation nukes
2022-02-10
Maxwell Bridges you have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject , how low is the radiation on these 4th generation nukes ? . .. to me it looked like mini nukes could have been planted every 3-4 floors down, around the elevator shafts , and the floors had spray on foam laced with thermite .. between the crawl spaces . . . her story about the vans , could have been mini nukes, wiring , who knows . i see her as an honest person , i known her for 5 years, and chatted many times
x146 Maxwell C. Bridges : title
2022-02-10
+++ Thru Messenger
Dear Mr. Jon Howland, I got banned from FB for a few days, but messaging seems to work. You responded to a comment that I made about Susan Lindauer and FGNW. You asked about how low the radiation is.
So each devices is a conventional chemical explosive that is used to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose is to generate heat necessary for the fusion stage. The kick-starter wasn't radioactive, and neither it nor the fission stage were designed for destruction. Thus, radiation badness from the fission stage was significantly reduced. But, as the analysis of the dust, other studies, and even camera "effects" document that minor badness from fission existed, just not to the extent that someone could label it a "(fission-based) nuclear device" and its implied energy output.
All fusion weapons have tritium as one of its building blocks, and this is true for the aforementioned fusion stage of these FGNW. However, instead of letting the highly-energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernel in an ever greater chain reaction, they were released in a targeted fashion, coin-shaped upwards. The observable effects of highly energetic neutrons passing through materials and leaving energy in the form of heat behind throughout the molecular structures would have some unusual effects. Wouldn't necessarily be noisy. There would be lots of evidence of high heat, such as tiny iron spheres in the dust and dustification of concrete (for direct hits), and arches/sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies out of large support beams and wall assemblies (just grazed).
Owing to both towers having evidence of a "spire" in their demolitions which was the inner core, I think the placement of FGNW was on four points on the outside of the core, for each detonation levels. Could be that the start-up had a measurable delay getting to the fusion stage, or that the fusion ignition had a slight duration, or much more likely that a misaligned and mis-timed tandem device could foul its nuclear neighbors with its neutron output. The bottom line is that the FGNW needed a stable platform for ignition and aimed their badness away from the core to assure this.
Several pieces of evidence including the cadence of explosions counted by surviving first-responders indicates to me that a placement every 10 floors was more realistic. The placement in WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 was different and didn't have them sitting on top of one another. In those cases, you can that the range of a FGNW in a building was easily greater than the number of stories in those buildings, as per the resulting craters and destruction of entire wings.
I want to believe that NT was the primary mechanisms of destruction, just like I want to believe that COVID isn't man-made and that the mRNA tech is safe and effective, but "wanting" doesn't make it so.
NT doesn't address all of the evidence, and has a super hard time trying to explain the duration of hot-spots. On the other hand, FGNW including one or more fizzled devices much more easily explains that feature, plus the energy observed in the pulverization. You can't just "light a fuse" with NT; no, you need a burning magnesium lighting stick. The amount of logistics and effort required to plant NT (in just a few days that bomb sniffing dogs had holiday) to produce over-kill pulverization (when "less would have been more" and "more believable") just does not match to the proven many billions available to this operation.
Makes much more sense for van workers to be installing mounting brackets and wiring in the many weeks prior to 9/11 [in all WTC buildings] and then leaving the final "click-in" install and alignment of the FGNW devices [4 per detonation level, 10 detonation levels, 2 towers, 3 neighboring buildings] to a small team on those final days.
//
{mcb: I don't know who wrote the following notes; punctuation isn't mine. Copied from someone.}
tritium, was found in the dust
all this heat could of course provide ignition for thermite spray foam under every floot .
much of the massive white clouds was steam . .so what you are saying , i have always thought makes sense
previous record for buiding demo was like 43 floors . .
crazy !
x148 Jon Howland : that guy should not be a moderator
2022-02-10
Sam Haschets
that guy , should not be a moderator
x150 Maxwell C. Bridges : multiple run-ins with Mr. Sam Haschets
2022-02-10
Dear Mr. Howland, tritium (for fusion) was found in the water run-off and in the air particles down wind; not in the dust, though. The dust has Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities (for fission).
While true that the heat from the fission stage could have ignited the NT spray foam, that doesn't make a lot of sense from the logistics point of view. They wanted the event to be explained away as a gravity-driven failure, so spray foam NT in its observed overkill amounts would give that away and simply doesn't make sense that it would be so planned. On the other hand, FGNW have energy to spare and overkill is a side-effect.
I've had multiple run-ins with Mr. Sam Haschets. I wouldn't call them enlightening or good from the perspective of his participation. Mostly he was chiming in on the side of, or allowing the antics of others, who were the actual agents and bots. They were in the FB groups "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate", which were both probably CIA/Mossad based.
Come to think of it: "It's a fact! 911 was an inside job!" isn't far removed from a controlled disinfo group.
If curious, you can search for Sam's name in this collection of FB exchanges [saved to a medium that I control and won't so quickly be disappeared by a vengeful moderator or heavy-handed FB disinfo action.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
//
x152 Maxwell C. Bridges : poking holes in disinformation and the limited hang-out (NT)
2022-03-07
https://www.facebook.com/david.peacock.9066/posts/10159673304983788?comment_id=10159673440653788&reply_comment_id=10159673516483788¬if_id=1646686295902722¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Sorry to chime here and poke holes in disinformation and the limited hang-out (NT) that too many 9/11 Truthers continue to believe, owing to their own levels of cognitive dissonance and the fact that AE9/11Truth was infiltrated precisely to hold to certain "lesser" narratives.
Details are given in these two blog postings.
In a nutshell, NT is incapable of explaining all of the evidence, even the pictured "meteor"; those with PhD's promoting NT know of this glaring weakness yet have never looked into alternative explanations legitimately. 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components that leak out all over, such as this "meteor" as well as the USGS data tables that show Uranium and all of its decay elements (indicating fission) and the song-and-dance Tritium report that tried to explain the tritium in the run-off water as coming from content already present in the buildings (tritium indicates fusion and is the building block of all late-3rd and early-4th generation nuclear devices.)
Yes, AE9/11Truth did eventually try to debunk the use of nuclear devices, except that they purposely framed the nuclear devices in inappropriate ways (too large, too much yield, too much radiation, "nuclear blast") and have never considered legitimately FGNW, which are tactical in nature.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
This is a predecessor blog posting with much overlap to the above, but it is being brought up because it has several sections that slaughter the NT sacred cow.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
I speculate four FGNW per detonation level in the towers; 6-12 detonation levels; affixed to the inner core but the cone-shaped output aimed upwards is targeted to miss the inner core [else it could foul neighboring devices and lower devices.]. Conventional chemical charge to kick-start the fission stage, and evidence of this are the out spurts deemed "squibs" many floors ahead of the destruction. The sole purpose of the fission stage is to generate the heat necessary for the fusion stage, so not being designed for destruction, its radiation and fallout would be heavily mitigated [but proven to exist]. The fusion stage, instead of letting the highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the core creating really large reactions, the highly energetic neutrons were released in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped upwards), missing the inner core (which later became known as "the spire" had happened with both towers to some degree), going through floors and content [leaving high levels of energy behind through out the molecular structure of that material causing weird effects like the "meteor"], and grazing the outer wall assemblies [causing features like the "steel doobies"].
The two ways to create some of the artifacts (that NT absolutely cannot explain) are the arches/sags and horseshoes from large steel beams: (1) High temperature for a measurable period of time [many minutes]; (2) an extremely high temperature for a measurable much shorter period of time [fractions of seconds]. FGNW have energy to spare and can easily achieve #2 as well as all of the tiny iron spheres found in significant quantities in all dust samples.
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x154 David Peacock : the nuclear arguments are the limited hangout
2022-03-07
Maxwell Bridges I appreciate your thoughts, info & perspective on this and there may be some truth to it.. but I tend to see it as opposite: that the nuclear arguments are the limited hangout..designed to muddy the waters. I don't pretend to know absolutely about a highly complex set of events that we can only try to fathom from some distance, can only say that certain technical arguments make more sense to me and my direct interactions (communications) with numerous folks from AE911T suggest they're honest.
In the end, I try to focus on what most of us can easily agree upon: the Official explanations for how the 3 towers collapsed utterly are outlandishly wrong. All else can be used to endlessly divide us.
x156 Maxwell C. Bridges : correct that the nuclear components to 9/11 had a shit-ton of disinformation spread over it to cover it up
2022-03-07
Dear Mr. David Peacock, you would be correct that the nuclear components to 9/11 had a shit-ton of disinformation spread over it to cover it up, with nearly every "Truther" who championed it having glaring errors. They framed it as a single large nuke per tower with a giant yield and lots of fallout, positioned in the basement and somehow having its energy travel upwards to start destruction at high levels. Clear bullshit from the get-go.
Just like with the no plane theory at the WTC (and all the flat-earth nonsense), it was spun up to muddy the waters on purpose, split the movement from within, discredit those who question the official narrative (including AE9/11Truth), etc.
AE9/11Truth got into the game with its very lame FAQ's that try to debunk Dr. Wood and nuclear components. [Disclaimer: Dr. Wood is disinformation, but her works collect tons of pictorial evidence to 9/11 being nuclear. And technically, all FGNW are in the category of DEW.]
When you dive into the FAQ's, plow into the footnotes, and follow the footnotes to their sources, that's when the deceit is readily visible, if it wasn't already present by trying to debunk "nuclear blasts." On that front, AE9/11Truth did a good job of proving that "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the WTC. The glitch in their disinformation is that FGNW -- being DEW and releasing 80% of its nuclear yield as targeted highly energetic neutrons -- destroyed things from that yield, and not the 20% remaining of traditional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. So while true that "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the WTC, they hide that they never present any information about late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) that would destroy by highly energetic neutrons leaving energy behind deep within and throughout the molecular structures of the materials penetrated.
If someone from the 9/11 Truth Movement and in particular from AE9/11Truth had done some legitimate nuclear research effort, debunked nuclear involvement legitimately, AND presented a theory that addressed more pieces of evidence than FGNW (e.g., nuclear involvement), why I'd already be singing that new tune and apologizing for having led people astray.
Stated another way, I eagerly read all of the 9/11 information from its many sources. A hallmark of 9/11 is that there isn't a single source of 9/11 information that isn't in some way misinformation (accidental) or disinformation (purposeful). The accidental shit came about from proponents maybe getting burned out or not having the smarts to follow the science and details, so they accepted what PhD's from AE9/11Truth were peddling without question, without pressing them to have NT address all of the evidence, and without offering anything to fill the blatant gaps. [High school math and chemistry applied to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots already debunks NT as the primary cause of destruction, because the deceit is assuming that there would be massive overkill amounts of NT that were not consumed in the original pulverizing purpose and were unspent in the debris pile smoldering.]
How was it that Dr. Steve Jones, the only nuclear scientist speaking on 9/11 and who got in no trouble with his NDA, missed the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer? Reputable scientist, peer reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
NDA's already forced all nuclear scientists (except Dr. Jones) to keep mum about their 9/11 suspicions. The penalties of expressing their concerns amounted to treason with penalties including death, so ain't nobody speaking up.
We see a similar game played with COVID and Dr. Fauci, where only Fauci / Gates connected scientists and medical professionals who supported the government narrative got research, got paid, got air time, etc. Fauci has killed many a career of dissenters to his orthodoxy. [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book on Dr. Fauci is worth reading, but you'll end up agreeing that Fauci and big Pharma have committed many times over the last decades crimes against humanity.]
At any rate, I've had these discussions before. Sincere discussion participants ask questions and more or less accept the researched response. Agents and bots do not, but crank lots of carousel spins.
At the following link, my discussion with Wayne Coste is probably the best.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
P.S. Before I forget, AE9/11Truth isn't just caught with their pants down on their lame "nuclear blast" debunking efforts, but some of those same fools champion the official conspiracy theory of the Pentagon, not willing to admit that the Pentagon was mostly likely hit by a missile and pre-planted explosives [for how neatly it wiped out the investigators and their records from the Office of Naval Intelligence looking into Rumsfeld's missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon spending announced on 9/10 (not a typo).]
//
x158 David Peacock : plans of neutron-centric bombs discussed back in the 70's
2022-03-07
Maxwell Bridges Thanks for laying out more details and arguments--will try to delve back in sometime and do a fresh assessment.. easily agree with you on some points--esp re Fauci/Gates, etc.
Recall there were plans re neutron-centric bombs back in the 70's if not earlier, but they came under 'attack' (ha?) because they tended to leave most buildings/structures intact while wiping out living beings.. guess that's too sterile? a way to mass-murder?
Off top of my head, it does seem that avoiding some degree of EMP would be difficult, and all the more if multiple sources of extreme energy. Can only imagine the perpetrators would have needed to overdo certain aspects in order to ensure sufficient+rapid destruction in all 3 towers.
Yeah, that 'announcement' by Rumsfeld one day prior to 9/11 got buried under an avalanche of well, 9/11 news.
Pretty crazy announcement..hard to fathom his rationale for making such--guess it could lend some perverse cred to him if needed in the future?
Btw, that $2.3 Trillion has gone up by an order of magnitude since 2001.
Will try to check out your links soon.. it's all some wildly complex stuff so I'm cautious~skeptical of most of it. A million rabbit holes to dive into and get lost in! 😮
x160 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ever wonder why the discussion stopped?
2022-03-07
Dear Mr. David Peacock, Yes, the neutron bomb was discussed back in the 70's. Ever wonder why the discussion stopped? Those neutron devices were intended to be ignited in the atmosphere, were large in payload, spread neutrons & radiation everywhere, and also had significant traditional yield (heat wave, blast wave, and EMP) that would damage things not "hardened".
The inventor of the neutron bomb (Teller) was asked if it could be made directional, and he answered to the effect "semi-sphere".
The reason discussion stopped is that those PhD's tweaked and tweaked and got the nuclear devices to the point where the neutrons could be directed or aimed (cone-shaped). The neutron bomb became the foundation for all late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear bombs. All public discussions about nuclear weapons of any kind had significant amounts of disinformation or omission, because they weren't going to "enable those with bad intentions with all the details" or reveal the US nuclear arsenals "ways and means."
As for EMP, this was present on 9/11 with the multiple FGNW deployed. And this is where Dr. Wood's disinformation comes into play. She documented the evidence, then botched the explanation; let it get framed as "beams from space" despite atmosphere issues for the wavelengths required, didn't power it with anything real world; did a shitty job of nuclear research...
But, she did document the vehicles that were destroyed near WTC-7 and in the car park across the way. EMP line of sight slipping out through window slits and falling debris explains it. [EMP creates Eddy currents in the metal hit; sufficiently high currents results in heat that can ignite items attached to it, like paint, rubber door seals, etc.]
Owing to the observed pulverization overkill anomaly, one can conclude that conventional chemical-based explosives (whatever proportion of NT might have been added to it if defending that theory) presented a logistics hurdle that bomb-sniffing dogs would have caught well before the date they took holiday. Lugging it in, installing it, painting it on the fire proofing (hahaha)? All that would have been hard to conceal and make the time schedule even with a large crew (and their loose lips). And why? If they were going to actually wire in that much explosive, they could have gone more Hollywood by making the destruction more believable, as in, ~not~ at gravitational acceleration with glaring examples of excess energy (ejecting content, pulverizing content).
However, FGNW have overkill as a side-effect, not as a design goal [which NT would have had to have had to get what was observed.] Most of the weeks of installation time for FGNW would have been them putting in brackets to hold the devices and possibly wiring (if it wasn't wireless), and bomb sniffing dogs wouldn't have been the wiser. 4 devices per detonation levels times (say) 10 levels times 2 towers [although WTC-4. WTC-5. WTC-6, and WTC-7 probably had them as well] is something that a small team could "click FGNW into place in the mounting brackets" in the few days bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday before 9/11. I mean, the logistics is so much easier, and rather than planning, implementing, and executing an overkill pulverization demonstration, they'd get the outcome for free for devices that have that energy in excess. The implementation energy they saved by going with FGNW they plowed into the cover-up, despite nuclear evidence leaking out all over.
Read the abstract from Dr. Andre Gsponer, and then ask yourself how nuclear physicists Dr. Steven Jones missed his work in his literature review? Or Dr. Wood? They didn't even try, but they did try to frame this incorrectly in a very strawman fashion.
In my article in the top-level comment from me, look into the section on camera scintillation. We effectively have video recordings of radiation leaching off of the debris pile and still present in various forms at the Fresh Kills Site. Stated another way: FEMA and NIST had the money for the best quality cameras. Why did they all of a sudden in certain shots becomes so glitchy and snowy?!! [Yes, I was raised on 70's rabbit-ear-antenna television and am used to lots of snow in my shows and visually compensating.] But these high quality cameras glitching? Radiation will do that.
Why did they ban Geiger counters and phones/cameras from the debris pile? The phone/camera technology is the same in today's smart phones. Did you know that there is an app to make your phone into a Geiger counter? Pixel cameras pick up radiated particles as tiny flashes. [Video tape cameras when confronted with radiation get all wonky, only you wouldn't notice until playback later.]
//
x162 David Peacock : multiple forms of 'energetic' materials were used to both simplify & confound the results & later interpretations
2022-03-07
Maxwell Bridges Lots of intriguing points to consider, and often just at the edge of my established physics & chemistry knowledge, so would need to research quite a bit to feel confident pro or con. I do know that radiation cuts across a very large spectrum (at least radio waves to gamma rays--several orders of magnitude differential) and there are a slew of penetration energies for different materials, & then wavelength shifts going thru dif materials, reflections, refraction, etc.. so trying to predict & then contain a range of energies (sufficiently) for multiple FGNW blasts per huge building seems extremely challenging.. but then there are lots of challenges for using some form of nano-thermite as well.
Could be that multiple forms of 'energetic' materials were used to both simplify & confound the results & later interpretations--so we each have some justification for whatever general structural-collapse theory we happen to glom onto.. at some point (for me, at least), I must exit the vast fields of weeds and go back to basics we all (mostly) agree upon:
There was much more to '9/11' than we were told.. it wasn't just a score or so of cave-dwellers who pulled off the entirety of a complex, highly synchronized set of operations; we know the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, NRO, etc were well aware of many if not all of the 19 hijackers; we know the Anthrax that followed a very short time later originated in a US Military Bioweapon lab; we know those 3 massive towers did not come down due (solely) to 2 planes, esp since WTC7 was not hit by any plane, etc.
And perhaps ultimately even more important: we know how our own Gov't leveraged 9/11 for horrific ends.. resulting in the deaths of at least 2 Million, with millions more maimed & many millions more forced to flee their homes from numerous countries, and all at a astro-whopping cost of $8 Trillion+ (imagine the Good we could've done with those $Trillions?!?) .. and I think this is partly why someone such as Noam Chomsky doesn't seem to worry too much re the how/why of '9/11' specifically, because he's long been focused on the much larger history.. a relentless series of atrocities committed by our own leaders..going back long before 9/11 & ever since.
But many of us happen to be especially intrigued by the events of 9/11 directly--so we focus long & hard on it (I certainly have), but meanwhile, there are roughly 10 million human beings dying every year from relatively easy & cheap to prevent/offset dire poverty.. ðŸ™
Again, I greatly appreciate your knowledge & ability to share your perspectives..well worth learning more about and seriously considering.
x164 Maxwell C. Bridges : agreed
2022-03-07
Dear Mr. David Peacock, I am in agreement with what you write. And I feel somewhat of a stuck-in-a-rut idiot talking hidden (but obvious) details about an event 20 years ago, when in the meantime the US has instigated multiple wars, eroded civil liberties at home, primed us for the authoritarian lockdowns of COVID, etc.
To this end, the powers that be WON, because they successfully delayed public realization of the depth of the 9/11 deceit until it was rendered moot and near meaningless today in COVID's shadow.
But I cling to Truth. I hold out hope that when the nuclear depths of 9/11 are understood in the proper context, THAT could very well result in a catalyst and in some much needed figurative nuclear fall-out on various institutions, agencies, and psychopaths in positions of leadership in government and private corporations. In fact, this is the danger that government still knows exists -- that the public wakes up and simply votes them out-of-existence --, which is why twenty years later there is still an active 9/11 coverup and disinformation campaign, and agents & bots still spin their hampster wheels to distract and mislead.
The government could have achieved some of their shock-and-awe goals with one plane. Two reasons (of many) why they had four planes are that they can more easily confuse by mixing causes and effects of the four(+) separate events with one another, and they had objectives [Pentagon ONI, WTC-7 SEC records, WTC-1/2 symbolism, WTC-4 gold vaults, WTC-6 vaults] "go big or go home" as their mantra.
In a parallel manner, they purposely misrepresent science and physics, particularly when it comes to the WTC destruction. The overkill energy of the pulverization of the towers while ejecting content and plowing through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration was a red flag to a very energetic source that practically screams nuclear involvement. Yet, the official government theory doesn't acknowledge this energy inbalance and tries to claim "gravity and jet impact and jet fuel alone."
You don't need to dive too deeply into nuclear education or the spectrum of EM waves. I've provided primers within my blog articles. The ARXIV.ORG article from Dr. Andre Gsponer on FGNW is also excellent.
//
x166 Gary H Camp : hearing construction noise in the weeks prior to 911 in WTC-1
2022-03-11
I used to work in the towers in building 1. I distinctly remember hearing construction noise in the weeks prior to 911. Could they have been fitting the structure for explosives and demolition? It was early in the morning (1-2am) when I would hear the noise...
x168 Maxwell C. Bridges : a ski boot into a ski's bindings
2022-03-11
Dear Mr. Gary H Camp, they weren't wiring explosives. No, they were installing mounting brackets into which later and very quickly the FGNW could be clicked, like a ski boot into a ski's bindings.
Here's my humble analysis on the matter. Be sure to follow the links from my work into that of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
They were using, say, four FGNW per detonation level, and ten detonation levels, meaning only 40 mounting bracket installation points per tower. Mounting brackets because the tandem nature of their detonation and a misaligned device could result in neighboring devices experiencing a "nuclear fizzle", as in, "not reaching its full potential and expected nuclear yield. Most of their output (80%) nuclear yield was in the form of targeted (cone-shape) highly energetic neutrons, aimed to fan-out upwards from ignition point and away from the inner core where they were mounted. [Hence the artifact known as "the spire".]
Because they were only installing mounting brackets, their work would not be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs when they were on duty. In the three or so days that the dogs were off-duty just prior to 9/11 would have been a good time to quickly "click the FGNW into place." Managed by a small team.
The FGNW had a conventional shaped chemical explosive to ignite the fission stage. Neither that charge nor the fission stage were designed for destruction. The fission stage provided the heat necessary for the fusion stage. The fusion stage, similar to a neutron bomb, instead of letting the neutrons bounce around into an every increasing chain reaction, would release those neutrons, but in a targeted fashion (upwards, cone-shaped fanning from ignition point). The kick starter charge would have been audible and probably even visible, as the "squibs" that preceded the destruction wave along the face of the towers. However, the sound of the kick starter charge added to the sound of highly energetic neutrons penetrating deep within the molecular structure of materials in their way and leaving energy behind would not have necessarily been LOUD (as compared to the massive amounts of conventional explosives need for the same task), given that it wasn't relying on a "blast" of air to destroy.
P.S. Explosives -- even mixed with any quantity of NT -- would have (a) had more detonation levels and (b) been very loud, much louder than it was. And this mechanism is also supposed to be in such overkill quantities that massive unspent quantities burned under-rubble for weeks?!! NT debunks itself as the primary mechanism of destruction. Nuclear fizzle in one or more of the FGNW in a non-perfect operation could easily create those under-rubble hot-spots.
A&E9/11Truth's FAQ allegedly debunking "nuclear blasts" succeeds, but its stilted nature also disqualifies it from debunking "highly energetic neutrons released from an FGNW in a cone shape", because that isn't a "nuclear blast" that involves the violent pushing of air and spreading nuclear residue everywhere. Completely different effects.
//
x170 Maxwell C. Bridges : follow the links into Dr. Andre Gsponer
2022-03-11
Okay, now that we've been through COVID -- a bio-weapon designed to be highly infectious among humans that triggers and exasperates various comorbidites, leaving healthy people alone -- and seen exposed other deceit in the PCR testing, the accounting, and the military efficient rollout of "Operation Warp Speed" with an untested vaccine, maybe we can appreciate new depths to the deceit of 9/11 and it not being beyond those psychopaths [who are high fiving that 20 years after, most of the public doesn't know.]
Name, 9/11 had nuclear components.
Here's my humble analysis on the matter.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Be sure to follow the links from my work into that of Dr. Andre Gsponer, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Part 4: FGNW Discussions with J Remy Bullitt, Stu Kingston, Stacy Richardson, Colin Leese, Michael W. Lurie, Dan Kunes, Jody McIntyre, Dan Smith
x172 Maxwell C. Bridges : FAQ from AE9/11T exhibiting clever disinformation
2022-03-19
https://www.facebook.com/groups/VoicesFor911Truth.Radio/?multi_permalinks=5551223018239901¬if_id=1647710089436908¬if_t=group_highlights&ref=notif
Dear Mr. Richard Gage, Despite the many 9/11 truths that your efforts through out the years have tried to bring to the attention of the general public, there has still been a bit of gatekeeping and not following truth where it leads. In the early years, I accepted the AE9/11T (and your) position as the baby-steps needed for public acceptance. But as those years progressed into literally decades, it became clear that those efforts were gatekeeping and fixing the 9/11 Truth Movement's collective beliefs into limited hang-outs.
Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published under your leadership. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in the crack of her book, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid. Recall: arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies (of the wall assemblies), and "meteors." These are just the opening examples of artifacts in need of an explanation that NT champions (Dr. Jones, et al) have no explanation for.
The second FAQ from AE9/11T under your leadership exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield.
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed.
Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets mounted to each side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
The high school math and chemistry applied to NT combined with any helper explosive to achieve the observed pulverization results in a massive number. But when you calculate the amount needed to maintain even a single hot-spot for just 4 weeks and ignore that this is allegedly unspent and overkill from its original pulverizing purposes, the amount is obscenely massive, a logistics nightmare, and Occam Razor unreasonable [because "less would have been more" in implementing something that was more natural and not "pulverizing itself through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while ejecting content laterally" with -- allegedly -- no extra energy from other sources added.] Turns out that FGNW have energy in excess and can get you overkill pulverization with less logistics and installation headaches.
The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
We have recorded evidence from NIST and FEMA of radiation literally leaching off of the debris. This is why they suppressed those recordings for many years, and also why the edict came early that outlawed Geiger counters and phones/cameras from Ground Zero.
Here is my write-up with lots of substantiating links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
[also: https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158402690006269?comment_id=10158402989826269&reply_comment_id=10158403087096269¬if_id=1647983226576939¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
]
x174 Maxwell C. Bridges : cone shaped output of highly energetic neutrons
2022-03-19
Yes, the cone shaped output of highly energetic neutrons, which was 80% of the yield of late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons, can have that effect on the human body.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Want to know how the concrete was pulverized but not in a loud manner?
When highly energetic neutrons pass through materials, they tend to leave energy behind in the form of heat. Imagine the trapped water molecules in, say, the concrete suddenly transforming from liquid to extremely hot gas (steam) whose expanding volumentric pressure literally causes micro fractures throughout the material.
More importantly, imagine the rebar and the metal pans being hit by this neutron beam? They would ablate, with the leading edge vaporizing so fast that it causes a shock wave in the rest of the material.
To all who champion NT: NT was not found in all of the dust samples. In fact, allegedly the suspicion and calculations for NT came about from the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres found in the dust of various groups (like the RJ Lee group and analysis of dust in the lobby of an adjacent building). Dr. Harrit speculated that this came about from the NT chemical reaction with steel, and then calculates backward to some outragous sum for the towers. [No attempt is made to calculate the unreasonable overkill amounts unspent from the pulverizing purpose that would have had to remain in the pile to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.]
NEWS FLASH: FGNW can create those tiny iron spheres in the dust with energy to spare. Some portion of fizzle and fracticide of the multiple FGNW (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels, per tower) can easily account for the duration of under-rubble hotspots, plus all of the lame disinformation efforts to steer public thinking away from this factoid.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x176 J Remy Bullitt : Dr. Judy Wood IRREFUTABLE
2022-03-22
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158402690006269?comment_id=10158402989826269&reply_comment_id=10158403087096269¬if_id=1647983226576939¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Some of you may refute this video. But the only way that is scientifically possible is with Direct energy weapons. Research dr judy woods and dustification. But heres the video https://youtu.be/vlkZLlzOfVQ
Dr. Judy Wood IRREFUTABLE (HD Full Length)
YOUTUBE.COM
x178 Maxwell C. Bridges : I have Dr. Judy Wood's book and recommend it, although it is DISINFORMATION.
2022-03-22
Dear Mr. J Remy Bullitt, I have Dr. Judy Wood's book and recommend it, although it is DISINFORMATION. Dr. Wood drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
Here is my write-up with lots of substanting links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x180 Stu Kingston and Stacy Young Richardson: the amount of power required to run a laser
2022-03-22
Stu Kingston
J Remy Bullitt directed energy weapons aren't yet powerful enough to take down buildings,the amount of power required to run a laser to take a sky scraper sown would be colossal,
Stacy Young Richardson
Stu Kingston I wouldn't be so sure about that. They have them in space now .....
x182 Maxwell C. Bridges : technically in the DEW camp
2022-03-22
Dear Mr. Stu Kingston, Your statement needs qualifications. DEW is a very broad category that even shaped-chemical charges can fall into. When speaking of airborne DEW or space based DEW, they are indeed not powerful enough to measure out the observed pulverization. The former has limitations in the amount of chemicals required for DEW in an airplane. And the latter has issues with the atmosphere, whereby not all frequencies are well suited for transferring EM energy through the atmosphere. Also, when either is aimed at a target with fuel or an explosive payload (e.g., plane, missile), they can be very effective. But the towers had none of that, so all of the energy (and then some) observed in the delivery would have to be at the DEW source: airborne or satellite.
Hence, when I was researching the state of DEW and nukes at the turn of the century, I started ruling out most DEW devices and Woodsian DEW, and deep underground nukes.
Turns out, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices are all technically in the DEW camp as well.
In my other comment at a higher level in this thread, I provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientist. It is also in my write-up about 9/11 FGNW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x184 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Andre Gsponer, dozens of nuclear publications in several languages
2022-03-22
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed.
Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets mounted to each side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
The high school math and chemistry applied to NT combined with any helper explosive to achieve the observed pulverization results in a massive number. But when you calculate the amount needed to maintain even a single hot-spot for just 4 weeks and ignore that this is allegedly unspent and overkill from its original pulverizing purposes, the amount is obscenely massive, a logistics nightmare, and Occam Razor unreasonable [because "less would have been more" in implementing something that was more natural and not "pulverizing itself through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while ejecting content laterally" with -- allegedly -- no extra energy from other sources added.] Turns out that FGNW have energy in excess and can get you overkill pulverization with less logistics and installation headaches.
The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
We have recorded evidence from NIST and FEMA of radiation literally leaching off of the debris. This is why they suppressed those recordings for many years, and also why the edict came early that outlawed Geiger counters and phones/cameras from Ground Zero.
Here is my write-up with lots of substanting links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
2022-03-22
Maxwell Bridges well done
x188 Maxwell C. Bridges : thank you for your kind words
2022-03-22
Dear Mr. Colin Leese, thank you for your kind words. As my blog will attest, I have been at this 9/11 Truth stuff awhile, been duped by more than my share of disinformation (in part because I'm open-minded and willing to consider opposing points of views), persisted in my research and legitimately debunked what had duped me, and am now a burned-out old fart and one of the only duped useful idiots on this particular hobby-horse topic of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons in use on 9/11 at the WTC.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
I'm a "duped useful idiot", because I don't have serial numbers, configurations, yields, etc. and am willing for someone (like AE9/11Truth) to convince me otherwise.
... And therein lies the disinformation rub.
Why? First of all, the 9/11 nuke champions and the Woodsian DEWers should have been all over their unholy marriage and its devil spawn: FGNW. I mean, FGNW takes both of their premises to the next level, but none of their champions got on board. I think it is because they were agents and purposely peddling strawmen conspiracy theories (deep underground nukes, beams from space) to keep even the "woke" 9/11 Truthers in check with an Achilles Heel of purposeful disinformation.
Alas, even the bastion of 9/11 Truth -- Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- have been infiltrated. The posting I made before was the second half of a posting made to a new AE9/11T group from Richard Gage. The group is on moderation. I don't think they've published it yet, otherwise there might be a comment or two.
Here's the first half of that posting.
++++
x190 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE9/11T infiltration exhibited with two FAQ
2022-03-22
Dear Mr. Richard Gage, Despite the many 9/11 truths that your efforts through out the years have tried to bring to the attention of the general public, there has still been a bit of gatekeeping and not following truth where it leads. In the early years, I accepted the AE9/11T (and your) position as the baby-steps needed for public acceptance. But as those years progressed into literally decades, it became clear that those efforts were gatekeeping and fixing the 9/11 Truth Movement's collective beliefs into limited hang-outs.
Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published under your leadership. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in the crack of her book, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid. Recall: arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies (of the wall assemblies), and "meteors." These are just the opening examples of artifacts in need of an explanation that NT champions (Dr. Jones, et al) have no explanation for.
The second FAQ from AE9/11T under your leadership exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield.
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
x192 Maxwell C. Bridges : Fauci's COVID prove that medical professionals and scientists can be purchased to pursue agendas
2022-03-22
Dear Mr. Johnny Plectrum, if Fauci's COVID (and his other creations) didn't already prove that medical professionals and scientists can be purchased to pursue agendas (or risk their very careers and livelihoods), then ratcheting back in time demonstrates the same things with AE9/11 Truth.
It isn't that they haven't mastered science. It is that those who get exposure are promoting an agenda "thus-far-and-no-further." They haven't followed truth wherever it led; they've settled for limited hang-outs, because the 9/11 nuclear truth can still have figurative radioactive fall out in leadership, agencies, institutions. Hell, a large enough public revelation of 9/11 having nuclear components could lead to us simply voting out the government. [The danger there is the void and what authoritarian rushes in to fill it.]
+++ Here's a repeat
Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published under your leadership. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in the crack of her book, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid. Recall: arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies (of the wall assemblies), and "meteors." These are just the opening examples of artifacts in need of an explanation that NT champions (Dr. Jones, et al) have no explanation for.
The second FAQ from AE9/11T under your leadership exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield.
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
x194 Maxwell C. Bridges : aren't "squibs" in the traditional sense of building demolition
2022-03-24
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158405447081269?comment_id=10158405838821269&reply_comment_id=10158405854101269¬if_id=1648153499803941¬if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif
Those aren't "squibs" in the traditional sense of building demolition, because (a) there would be more of them on more floors and (b) they would have been very loud.
My premise is that those "squibs" are really residual kick-back on a conventional chemical charge used to kickstart the fission stage of a tactical late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear device.
Late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT.]
Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets pre-mounted to each outer side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The image shows the ignition of the FGNW via these squibs 10-20 floors below the main destructive wave.
The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent or neighboring devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed. [BTW, NT has no explanation for these artifacts.]
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
We have recorded evidence from NIST and FEMA of radiation literally leaching off of the debris. This is why they suppressed those recordings for many years, and also why the edict came early that outlawed Geiger counters and phones/cameras from Ground Zero.
Here is my write-up with lots of substantiating links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x196 Michael W. Lurie : more exotic weaponry was absolutely not required
2022-03-24
Maxwell Bridges, more exotic weaponry was absolutely not required for total destruction of the towers by controlled demolition. FYI.
x198 Maxwell C. Bridges : absolutely mistaken in your ill-researched statement trying to poo-poo "more exotic weaponry"
2022-03-24
Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, I believe that you are absolutely mistaken in your ill-researched statement trying to poo-poo "more exotic weaponry" as not being required for total destruction of the towers by controlled demolition. Why?
Conventional chemical explosives [regardless of how much NT is mixed in] would have been deafening, would have been a logistics nightmare not easy to hide from bomb-sniffing dogs (who were on vacation for just a few days prior to 9/11), and cannot account for all sorts of anomalous evidence: steel arches/sags & horseshoes, steel doobies, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, Uranium and its decay elements measured by USGS in the dust, the shoddy tritium report, the air samples with tiny metal particles measured by Dr. Cahill weeks after the event (indicating a very hot heat source was continually regenerating them), etc.
The real bottom-line against conventional chemical explosives (plus NT) is why? Meaning, why have as both a design and implementation goal the overkill pulverization through its path of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration: [a] if conventional means with Hollywood trickery could produce something not so obvious (albeit still loud and louder than it was), particularly if they were going to argue "plane impacts, jet fuel, and gravity"? [b] if the observed effects represented overkill in the implementation and increased the risk of being discovered beforehand?
Or looking at this from a different perspective, why are YOU, Mr. Michael W. Lurie, arguing against "more exotic weaponry" (late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons) [a] when FGNW addresses MANY MORE PIECES OF EVIDENCE than your conventional chemical explosives (plus NT) can? [b] when FGNW have energy to spare, wouldn't be as loud, would have been easier to install, wouldn't have been so easily detected beforehand? [c] when FGNW are in the arsenals of the main culprits?
I mean, you are ruling out FGNW for what reason? Is it because you have invested a decade or more defending the limited hang-out known as nano-thermite and have cognitive dissonance and don't want to believe that Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth could have been infiltrated and led the public astray?
Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published by AE9/11Truth. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in her book's crack, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid.
The second FAQ from AE9/11T exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and scope-limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield. Here's where you need to deep-dive into Dr. Andre Gsponer's work that was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal [given above] and his work in the decade leading up to 9/11 that Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth conveniently left out of their literature review.
In other words, AE9/11Truth has gone to great efforts to ignore "more exotic weaponry" (FNGW) in their research and reports in a most stilted and deceitful way.
//
x200 Michael W. Lurie : I know much more about this shit than you do
2022-03-24
...because I know much more about this shit than you do. And I don't intend to waste my time arguing about it with someone who already knows all the answers.
x202 Maxwell C. Bridges : Are you gatekeeping or something?
2022-03-24
Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, that response from you -- "because [you] know much more about this shit than [I] do" -- is very lame, doesn't substantiate any point you might legitimately have against 9/11 FGNW aka "exotic weaponry," and doesn't prove your boastful statement of allegedly "knowing more about this shit" than me.
I love the contradiction between your first sentence and the second. According to your second sentence, I am "someone who already knows all the answers" yet supposedly you "know more about this shit" than I do. Does that mean you have all the answers and then some? Do tell! Spill the beans! What am I missing? You make the claim, you prove it.
As for your intention to not waste time, why did you even bother to make a comment? Are you gatekeeping or something?
This isn't our first exchange on this topic. Your previous contributions to discussions that also centered on this 9/11 FGNW topic were... JUST AS LAME quite literally. You seem to have little substance.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
[In the above, (1) expand all chapter and expand all subsections; (2) Ctrl+F in your browser and search for "Lurie".]
Go away, Mr. Lurie, and let's let the adults have a rational discussion on "exotic weaponry" and the disinformation foisted on us by various subgroups of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
//
x204 Michael W. Lurie : overt ignorance amuses me?
2022-03-24
Because overt ignorance amuses me?
x206 Maxwell C. Bridges : you sure don't walk the talk with accurate and substantiated criticism
2022-03-24
Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, I loved your question as if you don't know what amuses you! Based on your contributions to the FGNW threads that have come across your bow and where you "participated", not a whole lot of competence in debunking the FGNW premise or promoting another premise (e.g., not-FGNW). Thus this exhibition of "overt ignorance" on your part must give you many hours of amusement when you gaze into the mirror at yourself each day.
For someone who "knows more about this shit than I do", you sure don't walk the talk with accurate and substantiated criticism. Without substantiation, what do your bold statements become? Dangling innuendo and in cases bald-faced lies. Not a good reflection on you.
Mr. Lurie, if you had an inkling of "wasting" even a little bit of time to drop seeds for lurker readers to discover valid 9/11 truth -- allegedly "not-FGNW" --, then the FGNW topic as presented and defended by me certainly deserves your A-game, more thought, and more effort.
Your wimpyness only hurts you. And it hurts AE9/11Truth (of which I am a vetted member since its inception), because I have presented legitimate criticism of their gatekeeping and limited hang-out efforts, criticism to which you have had zero response. Could you be any more overt in your "overt ignorance"?
//
x208 Michael W. Lurie : Keep at it, champ.
2022-03-24
Keep at it, champ.
"The only difference between misinformation and disinformation is intent."
x210 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside
2022-03-24
Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, quoting yourself from 2019-11-12, I see. Of course, it is a bit disengenuous of you (e.g., bad intent) to drop this gem again within the body of your other lame efforts to participate in a serious discussion about which you have offered no evidence that you know anything. A repeat performance of lameness here in this thread.
Keep at it, Champ, and outing yourself as a disinformation agent. Some of your clear tells are an inability to argue specifics, an inability to follow links, and blithe two sentence responses as if served up from a database of acceptable brush-off, no-substance, near-ad-hominem responses.
+++ Here's me quoting from myself.
A real person who was a sincere seeker of Truth would be able to say: "Those anomalies are some real fucked up shit, and I don't know how NT would have been positioned to explain them."
They'd say: "Mr. Bridges re-arrangement of the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks into his FGNW does surprisingly have fewer gaps while addressing a wider swath of evidence, and my cognitive dissonance gives me headaches trying to grasp it."
Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside of their scope or of expounding in depth on premises within their scope.
//
x212 Michael W. Lurie : freakin' hilarious
2022-03-24
You are freakin' hilarious. In a sad sort of way.
x214 Maxwell C. Bridges : "freakin' hilarious nothingness"
2022-03-24
Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, My participation is not as sad as yours. I at least did my homework, came prepared, and argue with substance and elegance. This is at least your second time on my FGNW carousel where some form of your participation to the topic was registered, and they are "freakin' hilarious" in their "Seinfeld nothingness".
Latter-day lurker readers here on Facebook (and later my blog) are not going to favorably judge your efforts, because in total their "freakin' hilarious nothingness" doesn't add up to a single counter-point to the FGNW premise that gatekeeping-you seems to want to debunk. That dog don't hunt.
//
x216 Don Kunes : we all can't be gems
2022-03-24
Maxwell Bridges well guess we all can't be gems
x218 Jody McIntyre : I use building 7 and the pentagon
2022-03-24
I don't even use the twin towers in my arguments anymore. I use building 7 and the pentagon. People seem to have far fewer 'answers' surrounding those.
x220 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTC-7 only rivaled by Dr. Anthony Fauci
2022-03-24
Dear Ms. Jody McIntyre, Yes, the ability of the corporate media to keep WTC-7 out of the "News Discussion" and of the general public's mind for literally decades is a feat only rivaled by Dr. Anthony Fauci's ability to muzzle corporate media in keeping the origins (and funding) of COVID-19/Coronaviruses out of the world's mind for over a year of the pandemic.
However, my tactical nuclear premise (FGNW) applies to not just the towers, but also WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7. The difference with the first three is that the multiple FGNW in each building were all planted at more or less the same detonation level (as opposed to multiple detonation levels in the towers).
The FGNW in WTC-6 were probably mounted near the outer walls and aimed upwards but away from those walls. Vaporized all the floors and the roof in the way leaving a very pretty crater looking shell. It should be noted that FEMA made it to WTC-6's vaults; not much is mentioned of its actual condition except the certainty that its contents were emptied before the event.
And then there's WTC-4 that had its main edifice leveled to the ground but not its north wing, nor its gold vaults underneath.
Have you ever installed a big screen television to the wall? It involves attaching to the wall a mounting bracket and is the task that requires the most attention so that screws hit wall studs and the bracket is solid to support the weight it will have. A receptacle bracket is attached to the back of the television (where the manufacturer designed in screw holes for this purpose). The final step is to click the bracket from the television into the wall mount bracket, like a ski boot into a ski binding.
Owing to my suspicion that the multi-stage FGNW and measurable ignition time necessitated a fixed and unchanging (from the destruction) mounting point, I believe most of the demolition effort involved attaching mounting brackets to the walls [without any devices present] and adding needed wiring, and wouldn't necessarily be noticed. Very close to D-day, or even D-hour, the many FGNW devices could be quickly clicked into their brackets.
Fracticide and nuclear fizzle (e.g., devices not meeting their expected nuclear yields in the expected manner) are always a risk with tandem devices. FGNW in WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, or the towers could have fouled thosed in WTC-7. Replacement or newly "clicked in" alternate FGNW could be done with a small team in a few hours. Remember, FGNW are in the category of DEW and have energy to spare. Certainly enough to suddenly and symmetrically give us 8 stories (100 feet) of destruction indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration in WTC-7's demise, as noted by NIST.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x222 Dan Smith : What of the molten metals
2022-03-24
Jody McIntyre What of the molten metals, the nanothermite, the pyroclastic flows, the molten steel, iron pouring from WTC2 minutes before it was blown up, Jody?
x224 Maxwell C. Bridges : the evidence of nanothermite is actually very thin
2022-03-24
Dear Mr. Dan Smith, not to split-hairs, but the evidence of nanothermite is actually very thin. What everyone (RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, USGS) found in the dust was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres that required a very hot heat source to create.
The fallacy of Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, et al was to ASSUME nanothermite was the sole cause of this anomaly and to do all in their power to avoid even looking at or considering any other mechanism of destruction.
Their error in this is even more clear when you look at how they extrapolated backwards to arrive at a minimum NT payload to allegedly accomplish this artifact, only to have that payload be massive and Occam Razor defying of the logistics. Worse, Dr. Jones made two admissions over the years: "NT was mixed with RDX or something to achieve the observed pulverization" (yet little effort was made into "the something") and "something maintained the hotspots, not just NT" (yet little effort was made into "the something"). Worst of all, the calculations on the amount NT allegedly unspent from its pulverizing purposes needed to maintain even one hot spot for only four weeks is obscenely massive and totally incredible as an action plan that could get by bomb-sniffing dogs. FGNW don't have that problem.
Peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal, available at the time Dr. Jones was "repudiating all forms of nuclear involvement", and purposely missed in his literature review. For shame.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
Part 5: FGNW Discussions with Lucy Moyer, Lorraine Clarke
x226 Maxwell C. Bridges : nanothermite (mixed with any amount of conventional chemical explosives) does not address a host of anomalies
2022-03-26
Dr. Harrit is being deceitful, and the first indication thereof is that nanothermite (mixed with any amount of conventional chemical explosives) does not address a host of anomalies: arches/sags, horseshoes, "steel doobies" (of wall assemblies), the meteor, duration of under-rubble hot-spots, Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities sample-to-sample, the shoddy tritium report that Dr. Jones accepted unquestioned and unchallenged, etc. Not only are those anomalies not addressed, those who champion NT do not even attempt to explain them.
NT was not found in the dust samples analyzed by the RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, or the USGS. NT was only allegedly found in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones, who coincidentally was more instrumental than anyone else in steering the rational elements of the 9/11 Truth Movement away from considering 9/11 nuclear components.
What was found in everyone's dust samples was a high percentage of tiny iron spheres, that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit try to calculate backwards (paraphrased): "given percentage X of iron spheres in the dust, then ASSUMING nanothermite as the source in the chemical reaction with steel, then the original quantities were Y and massive."
Unfortunately, the high school chemistry and math applied to a single hot-spot that burned for only 4 weeks proves the unreasonableness of NT (mixed with whatever). Not only is a massively obscene amount of NT required, but this is also allegedly unspent from its original (observed) pulverizing purposes.
Speaking of pulverization, Dr. Jones said that NT was mixed with something like RDX to achieve it, yet did no research into that "something". Likewise, Dr. Jones et al measured six spikes in the off-gases of the smoldering pile and confidently stated NT might have been responsible, but more importantly "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Alas, they did no research into that "something" either.
Bottom-line, high school chemistry and math disprove NT as the "primary source of destruction" before other debunking questions are asked (and not answered): how was NT allegedly position to achieve the artifacts known as "the steel doobies" (rolled up wall assemblies), the meteor, the arches/sags of heavy I-beams? Logistically how was obscenely massive overkill amounts of NT installed to achieved the observed overkill pulverization [not to mention duration of under-rubble hot-spots]? Why was pulverization even a design goal of the implementation when "less is more" in terms of an event that executed "pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration without extra energy added"?
When Dr. Jones tried to debunk "all nuclear devices", he framed his examples with too much yield and too much radiation.
Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed.
Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets mounted to each side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
Here is my write-up with lots of substantiating links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x228 Lucy Moyer : Oh lord, another ego
2022-03-26
Maxwell Bridges ,
Oh lord, another ego beckoning folks to follow him down the "yeah but"¦" rabbit hole.
x230 Maxwell C. Bridges : your glowing invitation for you and others to explore my unique rabbit-hole
2022-03-26
Dear Ms. Lucy Moyer, Why thank you so kindly for your glowing invitation for you and others to explore my unique rabbit-hole that ain't no "Yosemity Samantha" been able to TNT shut yet, but I welcome the attempts! I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this premise. Alas, I'm a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth.
If you were sincere and a sincere seeker of Truth, you'd exhibit a host of different traits. Like, you'd be curious and dive into the reference material before offering a comment that demonstrates how you don't have the strength of intellect or character to Alice down my rabbit hole with an open-mind.
Lucy, Lucy, Lucy. If you can't play nicely and with rational, reasoned, researched words, your ego is already outmatched on all discussion dimensions pertaining to this FGNW topic.
//
{MCB: Within a day of my response, Lucy Moyer's comment was deleted. Because my reply comment was dependent, it was deleted too.}
x232 Lorraine Clarke : near vicinity reported that the dust cloud was COOL?
2022-03-26
Interesting.
But if there was a heat wave that instantly rolled up those massive steel columns, then how is it that people in the near vicinity reported that the dust cloud was COOL?
There were several people inside the tower who survived unharmed and walked out after the event, who did not suffer from any heat wave effects.
What of the metal cabinets, apparently melted as though from extreme heat, which contained undamaged paper?
What of the melted motor vehicles, progressively dissolving like candles in a heatwave, right next to unaffected vehicles, and again, amidst clouds of unburned paper?
Where did their engines go?
Nobody but Judy Wood has ever attempted to discuss these apparently vapourised engine blocks. Just a big empty cavity beneath the hood.
The only other option is that the City authorities moved many engine-less vehicles into position on the surrounding streets as "fillers", which would require a large scale operation of unloading undriveable cars along the roads, apparently something which did not occur.
x234 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Wood got it wrong
2022-03-26
Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, You ask excellent questions that I will endeavor to answer.
You wrote: "But if there was a heat wave that instantly rolled up those massive steel columns, then how is it that people in the near vicinity reported that the dust cloud was COOL?"
There are different nuclear yields and happening at the same time, and can easily get confused with one another. 80% of the already-tactical nuclear yield was aimed upwards in a cone shape of highly energetic neutrons that did the dustification of the cement and the metal pans and trusses that supported them in the floors. [4 per detonation level.] The remaining 20% of the yield would have been divided between a localized heat wave at that detonation level, EMP (that escaped through window slits), and a blast wave [which might be the "squibs" seen on the face 10-20 floors ahead of the dustification wave.]
I believed this caused wall assemblies to have their spandrels weakened from the heat, and the subsequent blast wave allowed the hollow box columns of the wall assembly over three stories to be rolled like a "steel doobie".
The "dust was COOL" is relative, and the dust felt by the people in the near vacinity had a significant cooling distance to travel to get to them.
I disagree with the assessment of "cool", because among the evidence collected by Dr. Judy Wood were reports of first responders driving across bridges to Ground Zero and noticing where the ambient air temperature increased.
You wrote: "There were several people inside the tower who survived unharmed and walked out after the event, who did not suffer from any heat wave effects."
Owing to the multiple-FGNW deployed per level and the many detonation levels, the risk exists that one or more FGNW become misaligned or mis-timed, and thereby causing a neighboring device to not reach its expected nuclear yield, or even nuclear fizzling (a real term). The hot-spots burning for months are an indication that maybe a few of the FGNW experienced some form of nuclear fizzle in not reaching its expected nuclear yields in all of its outputs.
Thus, the surviving people inside the towers (a stairwell, to be specific) experienced the fate of one of several possibilities:
- no FGNW was planted and / or aimed from below them in their vacinity.
- the FGNW that should have creamed them malfunctioned.
Note that remnant of the inner-core deemed "the spire" is an artifact of both towers' demise, and hints that the devices were mounted on the outer sides of the inner core and aimed away from the core, precisely to assure a stable platform for all FGNW at all detonation levels.
Those people from the stairwell were not on the detonation levels and were shielded by many floors, and the stairwell itself. They would not have experienced the heat wave localized to a detonation point.
You wrote: "What of the metal cabinets, apparently melted as though from extreme heat, which contained undamaged paper?"
80% of the yield was highly energetic neutrons that would travel through all content in their path and leave energy behind deep and throughout the molecular structure of that content. Dustification is an appropriate Woodsian term. Content further away and/or outside the output cone of destruction would experience the event differently, making it easy for a file cabinet's side to be grazed and ablated into oblivion while some lonely papers in its former storage were missed by the cone and survived.
You wrote: "What of the melted motor vehicles, progressively dissolving like candles in a heatwave, right next to unaffected vehicles, and again, amidst clouds of unburned paper?"
EMP was one of the side-effects in the 20% of the yield that could conceivably slip out through window slits and falling debris. Line-of-sight it could induce Eddy currents in metal it hits; large currents results in heat that became sufficient to ignite what was attached, like car paint.
I assume you are referencing the cars parked near WTC-7 before it came down, and in the car parking lot.
You wrote: "Where did their engines go?"
I think you got this "nugget" from Dr. Wood, and it references the wilted front-end of a special type of pumper firetruck. Dr. Wood's analysis that the engine melted is simply an ERROR that she needs to fix on her website and in new editions of her book. The engine in that model firetruck sat back much further in the chassis and isn't in the front that somehow got bashed in.
You wrote: "Nobody but Judy Wood has ever attempted to discuss these apparently vapourised engine blocks."
Dr. Judy Wood got this issue wrong; the engines sat further back so physically never were in the empty cavity supposedly captured in pictures.
You wrote: "Just a big empty cavity beneath the hood."
By design of that type of fire truck. Look it up. Sadly, Dr. Wood got this one wrong.
The fire truck that Dr. Wood should have made hay out of was parked near WTC-7 and absolutely torched.
You wrote: "The only other option is that the City authorities moved many engine-less vehicles into position on the surrounding streets as "fillers", which would require a large scale operation of unloading undriveable cars along the roads, apparently something which did not occur."
No, sorry, that isn't "the only other option", because this is a definite case where factually Dr. Wood got it wrong and purposely describes the design of that fire truck wrong to come to the wrong conclusion of "engines vaporated."
By the way, I've legitimately debunked Dr. Judy Wood's work: by design she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. Still, I recommend her book for the color images and evidence that she collects. Moreover, even though I consider it clever disinformation, Dr. Wood with DEW is closer to the truth than nanothermite ever will be, because FGNW are technically in the category of DEW.
Also, I've had many riveting discussions with Woodsian DEWer's, including those closest to the dame herself. They were not sincere, and ran away from the task considering that if "Dr. Wood drew no conclusions", then her work needed to be brought to the next level to get to some conclusions. FGNW does that, but they are so cognitively dissonant mired in their limited hang-out premise, they won't acknowledge their patrona saint's work's failings (e.g., "no conclusions").
//
x236 Maxwell C. Bridges : the discussions that I have had with notable Woodsian DEWers
2022-03-26
Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, FTR Woodsian DEW was a premise that I had been duped or at least enamoured by. I loved her book until I starting reading it selectively the second and third time and observing the missed opportunities, the screwed opportunities, and the irrelevant opportunities leading astute readers to the conclusion that it was crafty disinformation, albeit with over 500 full-color images on its over 500 pages.
More interesting are the discussions that I have had with notable Woodsian DEWers such as Andrew Johnson, Atahan Ganduu, and Roger Gloux.
Before you over commit yourself to the Woodsian DEW disinformation, please review some of my earlier exchanges with proponents of such. If you know their arguments and how they were countered, your task becomes to agree with or debunk the counter to move the overall discussion forward. Alas, if you repeat their lame arguments without adding anything new, leaves the door open for me to copy my already authored response and paste it in here to rebut your efforts.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
//
Part 6: FGNW Discussions with Henry Beckwith, Phil Fellows, Bernie Soreass, Henry Hansteen, Darin Harvey, Ronald Bleier
x238 Maxwell C. Bridges : Sunstein agents did infiltrate and destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement
2022-04-14
Meme
2022-04-14
https://www.facebook.com/bernie.saurez.3/posts/536709384697212?notif_id=1649975021252900¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Maxwell Bridges
I do have proof that "Cass Sunstein agents did infiltrate and destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement" and in particular AE9/11 Truth.
One piece of evidence are the supposedly "energetic flakes" that only Dr. Jones found in his dust samples, but not the USGS, RJ Lee group, or Paul Lioy et al. What they all did find was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. Of course, AE9/11T tries to say that this is the by-product of the NT/steel chemical reaction, but purposefully and deceitfully left out the calculations as to the quantity of such required to burn under the rubble for literally months.
AE9/11T produce fraudulent FAQ's. The one that tries to debunk ~all~ nuclear weapons really only debunks (legitimately) "nuclear blasts", as in "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." And I agree.
Mostly because late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were hybrid fission-triggered-fusion where the fusion stage released 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, upwards, 4 FGNW per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels).
Here's one of many peer-reviewed articles in a reputable science journal on the subject of FGNW that Dr. Jones (and Dr. Wood) missed in their alleged research and literature reviews.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Here's my write up.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x240 Henry Beckwith : Maxwell Bridges omg
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges omg.
x242 Phil Fellows : Complete nutter off his Jesus freak hobby horse
2022-04-14
Henry Beckwith ~ Complete nutter off his Jesus freak hobby horse - just like that other nuclear attack woman dingbat Judy in Disguise - with glasses !!!lol ~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0za_ZDXZ7k
Rogan & Maher Mock "Racism" Of Wuhan Lab Leak Theory
YOUTUBE.COM
x244 Phil Fellows : why people run away when you mention 9/11 truth
2022-04-14
Henry Beckwith ~ That guy is why people run away when you mention 9/11 truth... if they know anything about such idiots
x246 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Andre Gsponer's religion deserves an apology for your disrespectful comments
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith and Mr. Phil Fellows, so your entire argument against a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal about the subject of FGNW is "omg" and "Complete nutter off his Jesus freak hobby horse"!
I do not know Dr. Andre Gsponer's religious bent, so you might well owe him an apology for your most disrespectful comments that do nothing to debunk his nuclear science (or his nuclear credentials).
Thank you for identifying yourselves as disinfo agents.
First clue was your inability to follow links. Second clue was opening with essentially ad hominem. Third clue was an inability to stay on subject or provide anything that would indicate you knew what your were talking about.
You really need to up your game, because I came prepared.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x248 Maxwell C. Bridges : because of people like you who are quick to character assassinate
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Phil Fellows, the topic is Cass Sunstein infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The subtopic is about the very real potential that FGNW were the primary mechanisms of destruction at the WTC: tactical, low yield, used in tandem,...
So you're saying that "people run away from 9/11 Truth" because of people like me, who researched the FGNW subject extensively and wrote up his findings!
No, maybe "people run away from 9/11 Truth" because of people like you who are quick to character assassinate a fellow truther and not consider his research and reasoned work. [I would be happy for you to debunk it legitimately, because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject.]
I'm out of your league. I've been doing this for quite some time. I'm burned out on 9/11 but still alive and kicking.
But every once in a while, something like the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement peaks my interest. Why? Because it is precisely why my 9/11 conspiracy theory involving FGNW isn't more widely known and championed, because the energy requirements of pulverization through its path of greatest resistance and near free fall acceleration while ejecting content laterally (and not very loud compared to conventional demolition with chemical-based explosives) is a SCREAMING OBSCENELY HUGE energy sink for anyone even half-way science literate that, when combined with the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, should have already given us LEGITIMATE speculation into 9/11 nuclear means.
The fact that most 9/11 nuclear speculation is wrong (e.g., single nukes per tower deep underground, too large in yield, of only one type of yield) and that LEGITIMATE speculation is a black hole [because those associated with research, development, usage of nuclear devices have really strict NDA's that involves treason and has consequences that include death.]
So, Mr. Fellows, if you are going to participate here, kindly up your game. Step one to being able to debunk me is to RTFM, or in this case, read what I wrote. Step two is to legitimately find my errors, while also acknowledging nuggets of truth, because otherwise you aren't being objective and are exposing yourself as an agent with an agenda.
Certainly infiltrating agents to FB to keep discussions away from 9/11 nuclear truths would be considered further proof of what the top-level meme complains about. Bravo!
//
x250 Bernie Soreass : you're going to pretend you don't know who this is
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges right dude... I bet you're going to pretend you don't know who this is... and even if you do know, you'll ignore it for the sake of your anti-Obama Alex Jones marching orders. Cass Sunstein theories are projected by those who haven't even focused on 9/11 anymore, that's how stupid and irrelevant.
x252 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood were clever disinformation
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Bernie Soreass, Don't be putting me into any camp with Morgan Reynolds (or Dr. Judy Wood). Shame on you by trying to associate me with them.
I hesitate to point out that I don't know why Dr. Reynolds is being brought up with regards to anything I'm championing here.
But yeah, Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood were clever disinformation. So was Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Harrit, and all of AE9/11 Truth. NT is a limited hangout.
//
2022-04-14
~ You are entertaining. So you criticize my ad hominem attacks against you and then call me a disinfo agent !!!!lol. I'll look through your stuff in a while - but seriously what do you think of Judith Woods or whatever her name is who talks about microwaves or whatever? And what is your opinion on this fellow former DC investigator? :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPN3deAm5gU.
Does he take you seriously? Or Richard Gage - https://richardgage911.org/ ~
or Kevin Barrett : https://noliesradio.org/.../archive-2/kevin-barrett-show ???? Just humbly asking, since you are the big expert !!!
x256 Henry Beckwith : Why opt for a more exotic answer
2022-04-14
Henry Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges have you heard of occam's razor? Why opt for a more exotic answer when the answer is already there in a less exotic, evidenced explanation? The only thing I give you credence for is your criticism of the Judy Woods "evidence" (which any rational person knows is a bad bad joke and obviously a disinformation campaign). Everything is spurious. To call major elements of the AE/911 liars is just disgraceful. What possible motive would they have for lying? And what of their peer reviewed paper? Cherry picking again?
Your offensive hostility appears to expose an agenda that goes beyond an earnest seeking of the truth.
Henry Beckwith
Has anyone here seem "nuclear powered controlled demolitions"? Anywhere? Any evidence that they actually take place? On the other hand we see thousands of conventional controlled demolitions that take buildings down..exactly as we saw on 9/11. So again ..what is your agenda?
Henry Beckwith
Phil Fellows Interestingly I think the lab leak theory is the covid equivalent of the Judy Woods theory. A red herring.
Henry Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges just looking at your link and read the response by the rabid (and vapid) Judy Woods supporter who brings up "intangibles" to make her case (this moron merely copies her idiotic thesis verbatim and does no cogitation to consider reality). Papers (unburnt) coming from office building explosions, whilst under normal controlled demolition would not be present as the buildings would be empty, but unburnt papers would be possible under certain circumstances as the explosives occur at set distances apart and so not all elements within the building are pulverised and burnt....as was blatantly obvious from what was removed from the site. Hence for people to buy her theory they have to buy the initial premises the she feeds them, namely lies (such as, zero evidence of explosives in the dust or video evidence, everything pulverised, no signs of explosives visually or audibly....etc...none of it at all true). And thus the zombies that follow her buy the gospel of lies in entirety and so pretend to rationalise within that fantasy.
x258 Maxwell C. Bridges : haven't made a single comment related to what I wrote
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Phil Fellows, You are not so entertaining. You complained that I legitimately criticized your ad hominem attacks against me and then called you "a disinfo agent." The difference between your efforts and mine was that I provided evidence to support my contention.
Case in point: the top-level posting to this thread was from me, was on-topic regarding the original FB meme, and laid down a small guantlet on how AE9/11Truth experienced Cass Sunstein style infiltration as exhibited by their FAQ trying to debunk "nuclear blasts" (as a deceitful catchall meant to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement including FGNW).
You haven't made a single comment related to what I wrote to steer this thread. Instead you and others try to steer the discussion into the weeds of Dr. Wood, Christopher Bollyn, Kevin Barrett, and Richard Gage.
If you are sincere in your desire for my humble opinion of those people, then kindly make a posting and tag me. [Might require friending me to get me to see it.] That discussion does not belong under this thread.
Stay on the topic of this thread. Your inability to do so, to follow links, to drag back relevant information from the link to discuss, have been hallmarks of disinformation agents in my tenure championing 9/11 Truth, and most certainly on Facebook where sometimes automated bots assist.
If you aren't a disinfo agent, engaging in a rational, on-topic discussion could easily prove that, at which point I'll apologize. Until then, consider it a jab in the ribs for you to be more of a real, objective, rational person in your interactions with me. I'm human and tire of bot-games.
//
x260 Maxwell C. Bridges : I'll not be dragged into a Dr. Judy Wood discussion
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, Four comments in a row in the same time period when they could have been combined with a couple simple SHIFT-ENTER's is akin to you spamming this thread mostly because it indicates that maybe you didn't think out your response very well. Write your responses offline maybe.
I laid down the gauntlet at the start of this thread with Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article appearing in a reputable science journal. I'll not be dragged into a Dr. Judy Wood discussion, even though her work is closer to the truth than nano-thermite given that FGNW are technically in the category of DEW.
As for the Occam Razor reference and your question: "Why opt for a more exotic answer when the answer is already there in a less exotic, evidenced explanation?"
I've already discussed this in this blog postings that you were linked and haven't read, and below is a predecessor article [with lots of overlap and] a debunking of NT as the primary mechanism of destruction.
*snap of the fingers*
Let us shut down your hypnotic spell about an alleged less exotic answer already being there. That NT dog don't hunt for Occam Razor, because the logistics on the amounts necessary to achieve just the observed overkill pulverization is huge, but the amounts needed to be unspent and above-and-beyond to maintain under-rubble hot-spots is OBSCENELY MASSIVE HUGE, and just plain STUPID if (a) you could achieve the destruction with less payload and (b) make it look like a much slower-than gravity destruction (c) that you were going to try to claim anyway.
The overkill pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration is a massive energy sink that it just so happens exotic FGNW have in excessive abundance as more of a side-effect than a design goal [which any NT implementation explanation has difficulty explaining.]
Where Dr. Wood's work is dangerous are in the nuggets of truth, the many images of destruction that no champion of NT has ever ventured to explain "how NT was position to get these particular artifacts: steel arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies, meteors" and "the damage to vehicles around the WTC-7 and the adjacent parking lot." [EMP from the multiple FGNW slipping out through window slits explains the latter.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
You wrote: "Has anyone here seem "nuclear powered controlled demolitions"? Anywhere?"
Means and methods are two things that all nations, but particularly paranoid USA, Russia, and China, desire to keep secret and out of the public eye. Any FGNW used isn't going to have them bragging in public; more likely, they'll be blaming it on some perceived enemy and attributing it to "fertilizer truck bombs" like they did for OKC.
When you read my write-up, you'll be hard-pressed not to observe the dustification of the WTC towers (and destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7) as anything but exotic FGNW as described by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
You wrote: "To call major elements of the AE/911 liars is just disgraceful."
As a vetted member of AE9/11Truth, I can see where you would be upset with me calling them out, and I don't do so lightly. But it isn't defamation if it is true, and I've come to the table with receipts. I've done my homework [which you have consistently been skirting to grade for accuracy.]
The headaches you receive are from your cognitive dissonance. Whereas you are open-minded enough to recognize that the Official Conspiracy Theory is bullshit, you aren't thinking critically enough if you believe even the most stallwart 9/11 Truth organizations wouldn't have their message and activities controlled in some manner!
And now you probably have a decade or more in championing NT. I can bet it doesn't sit well for you when it is pointed out that NT doesn't address a fraction of the evidence, and logistically and logically doesn't even address well the evidence that they attribute to it.
You asked: "What possible motive would they have for lying?"
Were even the whiff of a "9/11 nuclear anything" to seep out in a serious fashion in the public consciousness -- particularly after last century's decades of nuclear weapon fear-mongering --, today 20 years later figurative nuclear fall out could happen in institutions, agencies, ... hell, even in the very demarkations of our country, because we might get woke and wise and just "VOTE OUT OF EXISTENCE" the old government structures and implement something new.
Silverstein was trying for a "Fields of Dream" (film) "if you re-build WTC, they will come" type of a deal. But the public getting the nuclear scent (too early) -- regardless of or despite the actual nuclear make-up and yield of the devices -- and you'd cause a panic exodus from NYC that would ripple through the nation. Ain't nobody want a toxic waste dump or nuclear wasteland in their backyard or place of employment.
So when the Q-Group of the NSA/CIA infiltrated the 9/11 Truth Movement, they took leadership positions to keep the discovery of truth at lesser evils than the truth "the USA with Israeli assistance nuked itself and lied to the world about it."
When you think about all of the often purposely off-the-mark 9/11 conspiracies, they were obviously manufactured by the PTB to distract the movement and get them swinging at strawmen.
You asked: "And what of their peer reviewed paper?"
You'll have to be more specific, but I've probably already reviewed it for its flaws and the tilt-and-lean to its scope-limited effort with my blog link above. Ball is in your court on that one already.
But now I get to fling that same question right back at you: "And what of the peer reviewed paper" that was linked at the top comment of this very discussion thread by Dr. Andre Gsponer? Have you read it? What about my researched and referenced blog articles?
I'm several steps ahead of you. Get to work. If you want to debunk me, you'll have to get on the same (web) page and do it section by section.
//
x262 Henry Beckwith : You damn control freak
2022-04-14
Henry Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges WTF stop trying to tell people how they should respond. You damn control freak. I keep it short for the benefit of people like you who are too busy spouting to look at what else is being said. I won't waste anymore time with you. You cannot take criticism and fail to address such criticisms so stop this pretence and thinking you are superior. You aren't.
Henry Beckwith
And the other thing (as I am going to respond the way I desire) this peer reviewed paper is not in relation to 9/11, so this is just your imagination at work and using the same game as Woods in making claims of "infiltration" and other logical fallacies to build your fantasy. You fool.
x264 Maxwell C. Bridges : title
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, I will hold you to your promise stated as: "I won't waste anymore time with you." And that gives me the last word in this thread.
You wrote: "You cannot take criticism and fail to address such criticisms."
The problems with that hypnotic suggestion are manyfold. You have not provided any criticism to any of my contentions (e.g., FGNW, 9/11AETruth infiltration). Thus, you're just projecting your own weaknesses onto me regarding "failure to address criticisms".
You tell me to: "stop this pretence and thinking you are superior. You aren't."
It isn't a pretense that I am superior, but is fact supported by the difference between your lame engagement of the topic and my superior efforts. The thought of me being your superior didn't even enter my head until you planted the seed. Thank you.
You should have delayed your first comment, inserted a couple of SHIFT-ENTER's, and then added your second comment about the peer-reviewed paper.
To your criticism, yes, Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed paper about FGNW and published in a reputable science journal does not mention 9/11, and to my (limited) knowledge, Dr. Gsponer has not written or publicly uttered a single sentence about his 9/11 beliefs.
But I did. I stood on the shoulders of Dr. Gsponer research and showed how it was applicable to 9/11. RTFM. Read my blog. Debunk the articles section by section.
You wrote paraphrased: "this is just your imagination at work ... in making claims of "infiltration" and other logical fallacies to build your fantasy. You fool."
It isn't my imagination that AE9/11Truth's FAQ that debunks "nuclear blasts" as sort of a catch-all attempt to debunk all forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement is a most excellent example of infiltration. They don't even mention neutron bombs, much less late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices based on such that are fission-triggered-fusion releasing 80% of their (already tactical) nuclear yield in the form of targeted highly energetic neutrons is quite different than "nuclear blasts" that use the medium of air and sudden & violent changes in local air pressure to destroy things.
You are projecting your logical fallacies onto me, because I'm not the one who is trying to debunk a peer-reviewed FGNW paper and a blog extrapolating that to 9/11 by -- *cough* -- not reading it, not referencing it, not being able to extrapolate the descriptions of FGNW to the anomalous destruction of the WTC.
Such lame and dubious efforts are exactly what disinformation agents would exert. Because sincere participants and thinkers not promoting an agenda would possibly delay their rebuttal until AFTER they had read what substantiates their opponent's argument.
Because I am a fair and generous fellow -- and as you mentioned, far "superior" to you --, if your subsequent comments provide some substantiated criticism to the FGNW subject (and AE9/11Truth's cover-up), they logically fall outside of your promise: "I won't waste anymore time with you." Meanwhile, though, if you criticise me personally, fool, that is technically you "wasting time on me", puts you in default, and is a clear indication of your sincerity and honesty.
//
x266 Henry Beckwith : no one is interested. No one. Bye.
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges blah blah blah....no one is interested. No one. Bye.
x268 Maxwell C. Bridges : voiding your own promise: "I won't waste anymore time with you."
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, Ah, shucks! Talk about torpedoing your own credibility, sincerity, and integrity by not being able to make one comment without voiding your own promise: "I won't waste anymore time with you."
Such bot-ish, agenda-toting, disinfo agent antics isn't very becoming of you, especially when you were forewarned how you were going to be treated for not being able to address the subject.
I must say, "blah blah blah" is a very intelligent rebuttal to the peer-reviewed FGNW paper and my blog extrapolation. Really shows how superior your bot algorithms are. Kudos.
Worse, your comment proves wrong your statement: "no one is interested. No one."
You responded. You could have STFU, but instead you had to show your interest by giving your stellar "blah blah blah". El-oh-el. Yep, you just proved yourself a LIAR in your interest exhibited by your lame reply.
You're out of your league. I will hold you to your promise of "Bye." Don't engage me, because it isn't going and won't go well for your bot algorithms and canned database responses.
Glad we got all of that cleared up... While ironically at the same time proving the contention about the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement and in particular its Facebook representation.
//
x270 Maxwell C. Bridges : receipts that "the lab leak theory" is the most likely scenario
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, In reviewing your participation to this thread, readers spot quite quickly another avenue where you play the government disinfo agent in trying to keep public understanding at fiction. You wrote to Mr. Phil Fellows:
"Interestingly I think the lab leak theory is the covid equivalent of the Judy Woods theory. A red herring."
The recent books from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Mercola have the receipts that "the lab leak theory" is the most likely scenario, although it could be argued "accidental versus deliberate." The two decades of Bill Gates sponsored war gaming of a bio-agent event tells us that it wasn't a case of "if planning" but of "when planning".
The Wuhan market had no bats for sale anywhere at the very start of the pandemic, and the live bats were 400 miles away in hibernation at that time of year. On the other hand, the NIH (Fauci) funded bio-defense lab was literally within walking distance of the Wuhan market.
What was present at the Wuhan market was a worker from the lab who got infected (unknowingly) in the course of their "gain-of-function" research into Covid viruses and simply walked to the neighoring market -- as most Chinese citizens do -- to get their food and began infecting others.
Read RFK, Jr.'s and/or Dr. Mercola's books on the subject of COVID. Just like you get headaches from your cognitive dissonance relating to 9/11 nuclear components, you'll get even bigger headaches in learning of the decades-long corruption of NIH, CDC, WHO, and the (US) medical establishment in general thanks to Big Pharma. It isn't what you were led to believe, and you'll be pissed at yourself at your compliance actions of wearing known-ineffective, germ-toting, clothe masks.
//
x272 Henry Hansteen and Henry Beckwith : Maxwell bridges is one mad and stupid commentator
2022-04-14
Henry Hansteen
Henry Beckwith soreass' Facebook page is infested with disinformation trolls. These imbeciles are a waste of time for any informed, rational 9/11 truth researcher. No planes, nuclear bombs, space beams, and holograms are all examples of the delusional spew of disinformation trolls. These imbeciles don't do hard evidence or logic. They only do troll spew.
Henry Beckwith
Henry Hansteen Maxwell bridges is one mad and stupid commentator. His responses get more and more irrational and the more you point it out the worse he gets. I think he ought to be on medication, and if he is already...he ought to take them.
Henry Beckwith
Maxwell Bridges your take on covid reveals what a pathetic and sloppy operative you are. The only agent here is you. Time wasting troll whose mind is devoid of logic....and whose arguments are thus similar..I need to remove you now as your stench is repulsive.
Henry Beckwith
The only person spamming this post is you. Everything you write is a lie, a deception ..even your responses. You claim that "all" are with you in condemning your fabrications, but no one is. You are alone in your mental illness. By God it needs seeing to as you are one tedious, odious and vapid commentator. Not one response had the decency of an iota of honestly. Begone
x274 Maxwell C. Bridges : the irony from your three-in-a-row comments projecting your spamming on to me
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, I was totally el-oh-el as I read the irony from your three-in-a-row comments projecting your weakness on to me by saying "The only person spamming this post is you."
Could you get any more triggered?
And what do your comments say? Do they address anything from deviant conclusions on the 9/11 and Covid psychological operations? No, they do not.
Your comments address me in unflattering and libelous ways. Your three-in-a-row comments demonstrates your inability to keep your recent promise -- "I won't waste anymore time with you" -- and shoots a hole in the ass of your integrity.
... Wait a minute! *SMH*
The depth and intelligence exhibited in those three-in-a-row comments look to be "covid" triggered quite literally. Bot algorithms assigned to maintain a narrative and tote an agenda are prone to do that. A keyword or position triggers an algorithm to output multiple responses [which can push discussion comments pre-maturely into Facebook's "See more..." regions] on the sole theme of attacking the messenger and avoiding the message at all costs. This tactic is independent of the triggering deviant ideology, and does not need to acknowledge anything from the deviant premises, because its purpose is to inspire emotional, equally as offensive responses that could result in a Facebook suspension.
I was so looking forward to having a rational, on-topic discussion with you, dear Mr. Henry Beckwith. Alas, this isn't going to happen, no fault of mine. I do thank you for revealing yourself to be a government agent/bot. Whereas I have been known -- for shits and giggles -- to take agents/bots for carousel spins, I don't anymore. Agents/bots are paid/programmed to not change their stance no matter how much their position/narrative is undermined. Discussions aren't sincere for the agent/bot, but could be enlightening to lurker readers.
The multiple attempts to engage me in a flame war to foul myself out [going against FB terms of use] is another data point in their agent / bot trend line. Because you're an agent/bot, I won't bother to flag/report your comment; bots can programmatically spawn quickly. Ain't that right, sockpuppet Mr. Henry Hansteen?
Been there, done that, and so nobody can blame me for my prejudices today against discussions with agents / bots. They simply waste time. And in this case, they control / own the top-most FB posting under which this thread exists, so can disappear this time-suck at any point in time and "win". [Good thing I work off-line and copy-and-paste into FB, so have my own "record".]
Here is a tell from the agent / bot who wrote: "Everything you write is a lie, a deception ..even your responses."
Normally, I'd be like: "You make the claim; you substantiate the claim and make that case." That's how the rules of rational discussion go. Failure to take such efforts voids that original claim, transforms the claim into "ad hominem", and boomerangs back onto the claimant as substantiation for claimant lying among other integrity-dinging actions.
But then I be like: "FYI, high school English class teaches to avoid over generalizations (e.g., all, none, everything, nothing) in your writing, because it takes only one exception to prove it wrong."
Originally, I was like: "Buh-ought! Could you be any more over the top and extreme? Way to lose all your credibility, bot!"
And then I transition into being like: "It is just an insincere agent / bot whose very triggering, lame flame-baiting, and avoidance of substance is just trying to waste my time and tweak my emotions by projecting its weaknesses in a hypnotic fashion."
*SNAP OF THE FINGERS* That spell is broken.
You may have the last word in this thread, Mr. Henry Beckwith. Please, please, please make it another triggered three-in-a-row! Let me help: "COVID is a psyops just like 9/11 was, and 9/11 used nuclear components, FGNW!"
Now, go! Three-in-a-row, baby! Give me three-in-a-row as I hand you the last word in this thread. Go! Another three-in-a-row! Don't disappoint me, bot! Go. Three-in-a-row!
//
x276 Maxwell C. Bridges : I was once duped mightily by September Clues
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges
I was once for about 3 years duped mightily by the 1-9, A-H videos of September Clues, so I have a lot of empathy for sincere folks who might fall into the NPT@WTC trap, such a clever stroke of disinformation that was!
I kept an open mind and my research skills honed for things that might legitimately debunk that particular conspiracy theory from my CV. How embarrassing that was, my active championing of NPT@WTC for 3 years. When I found the sources that destroyed certain elements of the NPT@WTC ruse, I offered public apologies for having led others astray, and vowed to help other SINCERE FOLK to adjust their beliefs.
All disinformation has nuggets of truth that helped make the deceitful case and must be preserved, because the attempts to sink such truths through guilt by association is often one of many of its goals.
Here are some of the NPT@WTC nuggets of truth that must be preserved.
- The media knew about the events and were complicit, even in the shots they shared between networks and from helicopters.
- NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville are valid. (Which is why NPT@WTC disinfo was spun up in the first place with its faulty digital imagery analysis and speculation.)
- The argue about not having correlated evidence (e.g., serial numbers off of found aircraft pieces matched to the maintenance records of the alleged commercial planes) is valid, but the most you can conclude from that alone is that the crashed aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft, allowing for all sorts of speculation about when and how the planes were swapped that is a side tangent.
- Digital imagery manipulation did occur. (One example is the four versions of a helicopter shot of the 2nd impact: nothing, an orb, a plane, and then the overlay of the impact onto a different perspective of the towers.) However, they needed eye-witnesses to see real aircraft and even for this to be recorded (so they could play it over and over again "shock-and-awe, baby!" So small digital manipulation to blur or change the actual aircraft into looking more like the alleged commercial aircraft.
How many cameras did the FBI visit to steal their footage and never make public of the alleged Pentagon plane? The number is greater than 80. They needed the circus of the NPT@WTC to mask the fact that the Pentagon with all its cameras never proved a plane impact, much less Shanksville.
I've been around the NPT carousel many times, tire of it, and can end it quickly with a well placed "go to" statement (in the form of a URL). SINCERE folks will let me provide the superior arguments to debunk the NPT@WTC while leaving important nuggets of truth still in play.
Alas, too often, the champions of NPT@WTC are not sincere. They are agents and bots paid to promote an agenda that can never be convinced of errors in its ways, learn, and change course and opinions (like I did). "By their fruits ye shall know them."
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
//
x278 Bernie Soreass : Zoom conversations or online debate on video
2022-04-14
Bernie Soreass
Maxwell Bridges can you handle Zoom conversations or online debate on video?
x280 Maxwell C. Bridges : much better with the written word anyway
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Bernie Soreass, Nope. I'm much better with the written word anyway, because I take the time to contemplate and formulate reasoned responses. Zoom meetings favor the discussion opponent with better rhetoric, but not necessarily reasoning abilities.
Furthermore and shouldn't be a surprise, my pen-name doesn't have a Zoom account, and using my Zoom account from my work computer would defeat the purpose of having an alias (although the real "me" can be found easily enough, with my GPS coordinates already known to the matrix.)
What are we debating?
If it is digital fakery and NPT@WTC, then count me out. I've dropped my seeds and watered them, but have no hankering to get sick from another spin on that disinfo carousel. Ain't really my hobby-horse anyway.
//
x282 Darin Harvey : now nothing about 9/11. You sound like a coward
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges that's because you don't know nothing about 9/11. You sound like a coward
x284 Maxwell C. Bridges : me sounding like a coward. So what if I am?
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, With that comment, I have proof that you are a mindless bot, because bots are incapable of following links and writing anything relevant about the content from those links.
I've posted lots of links to my blog. Had you gone there, you'd see a collection of many years of internet participation re-purposed to my blog, and nearly all on the subject of 9/11.
With regards to your second sentence about me sounding like a coward. So what if I am? Doesn't make me wrong in either the premises that I defend or me wanting to hold onto my private personal information.
If you are participating under your real name, how stupid are you?
//
x286 Darin Harvey : your rambling and paranoia
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges what's up with your rambling and paranoia? You should see a specialist for that
x288 Maxwell C. Bridges : 0101011000101010001001001 and 010100111001010
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, 0101011000101010001001001 and 010100111001010.
That's binary tailored for your bot circuits that I'm sure you'll understand quickly enough.
//
x290 Darin Harvey : take medication for your paranoia
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges You know you can take medication for your paranoia, right? Judging by it you believe in a lot of crazy conspiracies
x292 Maxwell C. Bridges : will do nothing for the fact that you are insincere
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, whatever medication that you think I need for my paranoia still will do nothing for the fact that you are insincere in your participation, almost to the point as if you've been programmed with an agenda and quirky database entries generic enough to be re-posted in all sorts of situations. No medication will help you.
Your programming makes you intractable in your opinions (when faced with new evidence and analysis) and truly a lost-cause for me to engage in any serious fashion.
//
x294 Darin Harvey : one weird dude. Get out of the basement
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges you're one weird dude. Get out of the basement and enjoy sunlight
x296 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thank you so much for encouragement to enjoy sunlight
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, I am most appreciative of your proclaimation that I'm "one weird dude." I'm in the company of Tesla and Einstein in that regard, and many other intellects of note, I suppose.
Thank you so much for encouragement to get out of my windowless basement office to enjoy sunlight. Oh the sacrifices we make to work from home! This is indeed an activity that I regular make time for, and the dog and chickens really appreciate my scheduled time with them sitting in the sun and catching up on my reading. Of note, I finished RFK, Jr.'s book recently while in the pursuit of this healthy habit.
Meanwhile, I couldn't help but notice that your entire participation here has not amounted to a hill of beans in defending what is wrong about what I champion.
//
x298 Henry Hansteen : stench of disinformation trolls is strong
2022-04-14
The stench of disinformation trolls is strong on soreass' FB page.
Anyone who pushes the no plane insanity, nuclear bombs, space beams, or holograms is either an imbecile, or a disinformation troll.
x300 Maxwell C. Bridges : let us use our reason, logic, and imagination
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, You are correct about the stench of disinformation trolls being strong here. [This is where I discretely tell you to take a shower, because you are obviously one source of that stench.]
You wrote: "Anyone who pushes the no plane insanity, nuclear bombs, space beams, or holograms is either an imbecile, or a disinformation troll."
Anyone who tries to discredit the factual usage of nuclear components in the 9/11 WTC discussion by associating it with government-funded, proven disinformation premises "is either an imbecile, or a disinformation troll."
Because you brought up nuclear bombs, let's talk about late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear bombs by referring to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
After reading that reference and acknowledging that FGNW are technically in the category of DEW, let us use our reason, logic, and imagination to extrapolate the technical description of what FGNW are and can do to the real, dustification events of 9/11 at the WTC.
If you are having trouble with such mental exercises, you may cheat off of my homework. Here's my write-up of how FGNW as described by Dr. Andre Gsponer apply to a much wider spectrum of 9/11 evidence that ALL OTHER 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES (including of course the OCT).
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Or stated another way. The above link is your debunking TARGET with a big hunking round red bulls-eye on its back, because it makes the case for FGNW.
In order to legitimately label it "disinformation", you are to debunk it section by section. Find the disinformation, if it exists, section by section. Sections and nuggets of truth not debunked remain in play, must be acknowledged as such, and must be legitimately incorporated into whatever other 9/11 conspiracy-du-jour that the debunker is championing. Nuggets of truth don't die just because they were embedded in someone's disinformation vehicle for a time.
Ok, disinformation agents? That was your trigger. Now, go! Three-in-a-row. If they are ad hominem and don't address specifics from either linked reference, bingo! FGNW wins by default.
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x302 Ronald Bleier : I take your general point
2022-04-14
Maxwell Bridges I take your general point. Explosives were used to bring the buildings down. Planes weren't necessary and as Holmgren writes, too complicated for the mission of awe and terror.
x304 Maxwell C. Bridges : title
2022-04-14
Dear Mr. Ronald Bleier, My general point is ~not~ that "explosives were used to bring the buildings down", but that late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were used and address not only the evidence but the wonkiness in the OCT and various stilted disinfo premises to steer us away.
While true that planes weren't needed -- and in fact, failed -- to bring the towers down, the planes at the WTC were absolutely required as part of the ruse and psyops precisely to be viewed by witnesses and recorded by news to be replayed over and over and over. Three of the four main 9/11 events absolutely required planes to be observed; Shanksville did not.
I've read Holmgren in the past and deemed him a disinfo agent trying to dupe well-meaning but science-challenged researchers with dubious math and science. Resting on his work is resting on disinformation.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
Part 7: FGNW Discussions with Rod Drew, Darris Mishler, Gary Fowler, Andy Rowlands, Leon Prevot
x306 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth : where is the top of the building
2022-04-21
2022-04-21
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158444470296269?comment_id=10158444927976269¬if_id=1650597501602286¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
Please explain, since the top of the building is allegedly crushing the bottom, why the destruction on one side of the building is racing far ahead of the destruction on the other side. Wouldn't the destruction be more or less level all the way down?
And come to think of it, where is the top of the building?
x308 Maxwell C. Bridges : extrapolate Dr. Gsponer's FGNW to the many pieces of evidence available to us on 9/11, such as your handy video
2022-04-21
Dear sincere members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, You ask the question: "And come to think of it, where is the top of the building?"
The answer is readily known after you study Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article on Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices published in a reputable journal... *cough* in the same time frame that Dr. Steven Jones was doing his literature review on his "repudiation of ~all~ things 9/11 nuclear." Given that Dr. Gsponer was writing on this theme in the decade leading up to 9/11, how did Dr. Jones et al (and Dr. Judy Wood) miss it?!!
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
DISCLAIMER: Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written or uttered publicly a single sentence on his 9/11 speculation.
"Das Gedankenexperiment" is to extrapolate Dr. Gsponer's FGNW to the many pieces of evidence available to us on 9/11, such as your handy video.
If you need a framework for your thought process or a target to aim at for debunking -- section-by-section --, it just so happens that I've stood on the shoulders of Dr. Gsponer as well as of Dr. Judy Wood and all of the forerunner purposeful "9/11 nuclear disinformation", and I rescued the nuggets of truth from the jaws of many disinformation vehicles. THAT'S THE DANGER. Because when the 9/11 conspiracy-du-jour does/can ~not~ address those nuggets of truth, then the theory is incomplete and a limited hang-out.
Here's my work:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels in towers; 1 detonation level in WTC-4, 5, 6. TBD WTC-7.)
FGNW used a conventional explosive (back-kick seen as a squib on tower faces) to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for fusion. The fusion stage, instead of letting its highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernal and chain react, are allowed to escape in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, fanning out upwards), 80% of its already tactical yield.
Owing to the multi-stage process and maybe even a notable firing duration, each was required to be mounted on a structure that would be guaranteed to remain stable for the ignition. Hence, both towers' demolition has the artifact known as "the spire", a residual inner-core area that remained standing briefly after the formerly attached floors were dustified and wall assemblies peeled away.
//
x310 Rod Drew : Aliens stole the top of the building
2022-04-21
Maxwell Bridges Aliens stole the top of the building and then landed an i visible spacecraft on the remainder of the structure, causing it to collapse in on itself.
x312 Maxwell C. Bridges : look forward to reading your researched and substantiated position on this alien topic
2022-04-21
Dear Mr. Rod Drew, I look forward to reading your researched and substantiated position on this alien topic. You make the claim; you defend the claim.
However, your hypnotic suggestion does not belong here, under a thread that makes the claim about 9/11 FGNW and defends it. No, please take your sure-to-be stellar efforts about alien crush down of the towers and create your own top-level comment.
Here? Under this FGNW thread? Just makes you like an agent bot who got triggered, doesn't know how to dive into and debunk a researched and well-reasoned alternative 9/11 premise, and therefore spams with ignorance. You lose before you even begin.
//
x314 Darris Mishler : collapse due to fire weakening the steel
2022-04-21
Question:
Does this look like a collapse due to fire weakening the steel?
This is WTC7, the third tower to "collapse" on 9/11.
They told us that it collapsed due to fire weakening the steel: something that has never happened before 9/11/2001 and has never happened since; yet, we're to believe that it happened not once or twice but three times, on the same day.
World Trade Centers One and Two were literally pulverized in midair and the remains of all three "collapsed" at near free fall speed, into their own footprints.
Defies the laws of physics, don't you think?
I mean literally: don't you fucking think!?
The TV told us that this was because "fire weakened the steel."
No, fire did not weaken the steel: the TV weakened the minds of the masses.
The same minds that believe in fake as fuck moon landing videos, fear boogieman terrorists, boogieman bugs, threats of "nuclear annihilation" their whole lives long, believe the stethoscope clad butcher coats, and so on.
Hypnotized from cradle to grave.
Is there anything that the TV tells you that you'll question?
Anything at all?
Please, wake up.
One-minute video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A49a9pXwDQs
x316 Maxwell C. Bridges : ... is a huge energy sink requiring some huge energy sources.
2022-04-21
Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, You wrote: "Defies the laws of physics, don't you think?"
The destruction does ~not~ defy the laws of physics once you realize that the overkill pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration while ejecting content laterally... is a huge energy sink requiring some huge energy sources.
Rather than defying the laws of physics, we've had government agencies and infiltrated 9/11 Truth groups defying the laws of good research and Truth.
The evidence leaks out all over that 9/11 had nuclear components. Preventing the public and the 9/11 Truth Movement from getting a valid whiff of this was and is an active disinformation campaign. I've got the receipts, but here's some simple examples.
- Most champions of a nuclear 9/11 did so in unrealistic fashions, such as excessive yield, singular per tower, deep underground devices.
- The debunkers of a nuclear 9/11 also mischaracterized the devices regarding yields and outputs; they mention fission and fusion, by not neutron devices and certainly not hybrid of all three; they debunk "nuclear blasts" but not "highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion" (sometimes poo-poo-ed as "exotic weapons.")
Peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal, we have Dr. Andre Gsponer writing about fourth generation nuclear devices.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Of course, late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels in towers, 1 detonation level in WTC-4, 5, 6. TBD WTC-7.) They used a conventional explosive (back-kick seen as a squib on tower faces) to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for fusion. The fusion stage, instead of letting its highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernal and chain react, are allowed to escape in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, fanning out upwards), 80% of its already tactical yield.
Owing to the multi-stage process and maybe even a notable firing duration, each was required to be mounted on a structure that would be guaranteed to remain stable for the ignition. Hence, both towers' demolition has the artifact known as "the spire", a residual inner-core area that remained standing briefly after the formerly attached floors were dustified and wall assemblies peeled away.
Here's my write up:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x318 Darris Mishler : per the official narrative
2022-04-21
It defies the laws of physics per the official narrative: that's my point.
The South Tower's top section leaning over and pulverizing to dust was a huge red flag to me on day one.
Even regardless of that it's impossible for skyscrapers to collapse at near free-fall speed, into their own footprints, pulverizing along the way without explosives of some sort.
One doesn't need to be an engineering and/or physics master to realize this.
As for the how of it, who knows for certain.
We don't have to prove the how of it: we just have to prove that the official narrative is a lie - and this is an obvious fact.
At least it should be obvious "¦ but this is clown world.
x320 Maxwell C. Bridges : we are in rabid agreement
2022-04-21
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, we are in rabid agreement on most points, except for two items.
You wrote: "As for the how of it, who knows for certain"?
The perpetrators know, and I believe that many of those involved with the disinformation cover-ups knew/know.
Take for instance the group assigned to do the tritium report that was scope-limited to attributing tritium to pre-existing building content (and not into speculating about destructive mechanisms). With such a focus, they got away with shoddy and unscientific measurements and expounding upon scope-limited speculation, which Dr. Steven Jones (and Dr. Judy Wood) accepted unquestioned and unchallenged.
As another instance, how about preventing fire investigators from doing their work for weeks/months, carting away and destroying evidence, or banning Geiger counters and cellphones/cameras from the ground zero.
The extent of the black hole on rational nuclear considerations inside and outside 9/11 Truth even by organizations associated with science and technology demonstrates that many knew/know, which is why their research had deliberate dead-ends and misdirections, otherwise logic would have discretionally brought their findings to nuclear conclusions.
You wrote: "We don't have to prove the how of it: we just have to prove that the official narrative is a lie - and this is an obvious fact."
A decade ago, I believed in this fallicious argument, too. And by golly, when dealing with rational and sincere people, what you write should suffice.
The problem is: insincere people otherwise known today as agents and bots. [And dumb people with no critical thinking in vetting conspiracy theories they put into their arsenals.] The government purposely created disinformation and championed it dubiously to lead the public's awareness away from (figuratively) radioactive truths. When dealing with such coordinated efforts to deceive, I no longer believe it is sufficient to convince my neighbor that the official narrative is a lie.
No, at this point, "going nuclear" on the depth of the rabbit hole of "9/11 being also nuclear" is about the only truthful 9/11 revelation that could conceivably still have figurative nuclear fall-out in a positive manner today, because the list of suspects gets reduced significantly and the lengthy list of opportunistic disinfo agents willing to carry that water bucket exposed [from Presidents, to Senators, to Representatives, to judges, to media personalities] suggests a figurative nuclear cleaning of institutions and agencies is in order, if we don't simply vote the bad out of existence and create a new. [Therein lies the danger, because enemies of free-thought are already preparing the authoritarian solution to fill the void of anything citizens vote out. We don't have our alternative paradigm built and ready to deploy for truth.]
It's 20 years after the event, and the establishment is already several pychological operations down the road. If the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't go nuclear -- because it's a valid 9/11 premise --, then they might as well just shut up about 9/11 [and self-isolate with their face diapers and boosted arms while popping some of big pharma's finest in illicit substances while Netflixing and chilling.]
9/11 nuclear revelations is about the only thing that could still make 9/11 worthy and relevant of talking about.
//
x322 Maxwell C. Bridges : the details unaddressed by truth in today's disinformation age
2022-04-21
Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, I see your point and was in that same thought camp for many years: "it is most important to prove the official narrative is a lie."
You wrote: "I purposely avoid going into the how of it with sleepers, whenever possible, because it gives them ammo: I prefer to keep their ass backed up against the official narrative, with no wiggle room."
Facebook participation -- on the theme of 9/11 -- can be divided into two main groups: the sincere and the insincere. Most of the sincere participants are in fact latter-day lurker-readers; they arrive late after the discussion happens, and judge the discussion based on the substantiation and rhetoric of the participants.
A small subset of the sincere attempt to participate, but often have cognitive dissonance of their own as exhibited by their huge blind spot: the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement to keep it at lesser truths. They don't have the intelligence, persistence, or conviction to be able to challenge what those infiltrating PhD's foisted upon them. And yeah, after a decade of championing nano-thermite to convince 9/11 newbies, they have a mental investment and a large "sunk cost" in the NT premise that prevents them from objectively seeing the vast weaknesses of NT in explaining the 9/11 evidence and anomalies or the need to research more.
Then we have the insincere participants that range from the "Haha" emoticon spammer, to the meme spammer, to the flame-baiters and bots. [Flame wars to defend certain narratives are easy to maintain and access from a database, because such are independent of topic and details.]
The insincere are the most active in places like Facebook, and are known for never being able to acknowledge weaknesses in their own premises, never being objective enough to dive into alterative rational arguments, and spamming / attacking activities.
Whereas discussing subtle details can be annoying to lurker-readers (and repetitive), when participants are sincere, it ought to lead to shifted understanding for all, because when various premises get undermined that substantiate certain beliefs, change is what rational, sincere people do.
The point you miss is that sometimes a crucial detail -- like all of the leaking evidence of 9/11 nuclear components -- is what is needed to convince the sincere and the duped useful idiots about why the official narrative is a lie.
Further, an error or lie in the details unaddressed by truth in today's disinformation age is the wiggle room needed to keep the masses hypnotized.
Thomas Pynchon wrote: "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
The flaws in your 9/11 activism are that if you keep to superficial matters (e.g., "official narrative is a lie") and avoid details discussions, you effectively enable disinformation that is probably keeping you at "a lesser level of Truth" (e.g., limited hang-out) and powerless to capitalize on the figurative "nuclear fallout" of 9/11 nuclear revelations in getting mass public awareness and vote-getting activism.
By the way in case you were wondering, I'm not a "sleeper." I have legacy that documents evolution. I've had so many spins on 9/11 carousels that if I condensed them to a moment in time and stuck my arms out, I'd be able to lift off the ground like a helicopter. It is because I'm sincere that I'm persistent in following truth and pointing out the obvious errors and disinfo even in "respectable" AE9/11Truth, of which I am a vetted member.
If, through me, this is the first time in 20 years you're learning of FGNW, then the 9/11 disinformation has been a success. They want to you park your activism at wimpy exposure of "official narrative lies" rather than imparting the requisite figurative nuclear fall-out in public thought needed for any meaningful societal change. I don't subscribe to that playbook anymore.
Sadly, RFK Jr.'s and Dr. Mercola's books on COVID documenting world-wide medical deceit, they now overshadow 9/11 and all its revelations EXCEPT the most important one that it had nuclear components.
//
x324 Darris Mishler : it's a time-suck and a distraction overal
2022-04-21
Maxwell Bridges
I'm quite aware of all the rabbit holes around 9/11 - and most of them around JFK, for that matter. I've been at this for a long time.
The owl people love to throw false trails at us.
People have spent much of their lives researching the JFK assassination and 9/11. That's fine. I appreciate their work and I have been over it, a few times.
If the sleeper can't see that fires didn't bring down the towers, going into elaborate details as to the how of it isn't going to get through to most of them.
I think it's a time-suck and a distraction overall, unless someone has the time for it. If they have the time to study it in fine detail, great.
Everyone has their thing.
Getting sucked into the fine details of the how of it is not my thing.
We have different approaches, which is fine.
At the end of the day, if the sleepers haven't figured it out by now they're not likely to, no matter what we say.
These false trails the owl people plant are not only there for the sleepers to mock us but most importantly they are there to divide us and waste our time.
The seekers will never agree on the true how of it but we could all agree that the official narrative is a lie: it is impossible for fire to cause free-fall speed, into the path of most resistance, of a steel reinforced skyscraper "¦ but here we are bickering over the how of it "¦
I've been over all the scenarios several times over the years and I'm still not 100% certain as to the how of it.
Who the hell knows.
I am 100% certain that fire did not cause that, so a true investigation is in order - but I'm not going to waste my life on it.
I'm all for others doing so.
Enjoy.
x326 Maxwell C. Bridges : a well written, fine, and agreeable position
2022-04-21
Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, That was a well written, fine, and agreeable position on the differences between two different kinds of 9/11 Truther activism: one that simplifies and more readily identifies 9/11 topics that sleepers could follow to become woke, versus a details oriented and even somewhat OCD discussion on some fringe 9/11 topic and how poorly it resonates with almost everybody.
I get it.
Both are needed, though. Without the details defended, the simplified version is just someone's propaganda.
You wrote: "I think it's a time-suck and a distraction overall, unless someone has the time for it."
Yes, indeed, these detailed type discussions are most certainly a time-suck, by design. That's why I often see agents and bots doing the engagement. The theory is that if the participant wastes enough time in Facebook engagement, he'll compromise his time commitment to other engagements, like a job and work.
"... unless someone has time for it." I don't have time for it anymore, which is why I saved my work and even the carousel spins that tried to knock my FGNW hobby-horse from underneath me. Now, lazy-ass me plops down the URL to my FGNW hobby-horse, rather than spelling it out in the forums each time.
It is a target that the agents and bots don't even want to aim at, let alone debunk section-by-section. Because they can't.
Because you've made your aspirations known, Mr. Mishler, have no fear that I'll try to drag you into debunking or vetting my FGNW hobby-horse. Owing to my sincerity, you should accept it at face value. Just kidding. No, you should recognize that I am in an entirely different class of 9/11 fanaticals. For this reason alone, my work is worthy of study and of you passing judgment on it, because the connotation of its very rabbit-hole depths shines a very different light on the information you present to sleepers to waken them. Stand on my shoulders.
//
x328 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Haha" emoticon reaction to a peer-reviewed article on FGNW in a reputable science journal
2022-04-21
Dear Ms. Kat Ashley, I'm just curious as to why your emoticon reaction to a peer-reviewed article on FGNW in a reputable science journal was the "Haha" one? What does that signify?
What part of Dr. Gsponer's abstract made you laugh the most?
+++ Abstract
"The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc."
+++ end
Please explain the large amounts of "Haha" humor that you received from my commenting efforts and their substantiated sources.
//
x330 Darris Mishler : I appreciate those that look into the how of it
2022-04-21
Maxwell Bridges
I should have said that I appreciate those that look into the how of it but the most important point is to prove that the official narrative is a lie and this is an obvious fact.
The same thing goes for JFK and so on.
I purposely avoid going into the how of it with sleepers, whenever possible, because it gives them ammo: I prefer to keep their ass backed up against the official narrative, with no wiggle room.
The actual how of it is an endless sandpit argument.
I'm glad people devote their time to it and I have spent my share of time at it but I avoid these possibilities when trying to "wake" someone up: I prefer to keep it simple - the official narrative is an easily provable lie.
Going into no planes, mini-nukes, and so on right off the bat with sleepers is too much for most of them - especially since fire not causing free-fall speed is too much for them.
They are literally hypnotized.
Best to keep the seed simple, like the snap of the fingers.
x332 Gary Fowler : video link
2022-04-21
video of the fire fighters talking about their impressions
https://www.facebook.com/100080290101526/videos/2526244367512240/
x334 Andy Rowlands : is there no limit to the paranoid conspiracy theories?
2022-04-21
First we had the towers laced with explosives, then we had claims of no aircraft hitting them, now we have nuclear weapons. My God, is there no limit to the paranoid conspiracy theories?
x336 Maxwell C. Bridges : The disinfo campaign against rational and valid nuclear discussions is still ongoing today
2022-04-21
Dear Mr. Andy Rowlands, Your comment is actually glorious praise for the effectiveness of the various government funded disinformation efforts. WWII bombers used to say, "if you aren't getting flak, then you aren't over the target."
I'm confused by your statement: "First we had the towers laced with explosives..."
This was a valid (but failed disinfo) attempt to balance the gross Newtonian energy equations. "Laced with explosives" is deserving of our mocking, because (1) logistically would have been difficult to implement, (2) logistically would have been difficult to conceal from bomb-sniffing dogs, and (3) logically could have been done in a manner that wasn't so obviously above-and-beyond overkill pulverization so as to better fit their lame pre-ordained explanations of "plane impacts, jet fuel and office furnishing fires, and gravity."
Now the claims of "no impact hitting them" was valid for the Pentagon and Shanksville, which is why the "no planes theory" was spun up for the WTC that even needed Parts 1-9 and A-H of the disinfo video premise known as "September Clues."
You go on to write: "now we have nuclear weapons."
For the record, disinformation agents have been promoting nuclear weapons from the onset, but what flags their work is improper framing of the nuclear characteristic, yields, and placement such as to not conceivably being able to match the recorded evidence of destruction. They avoided speculation into "exotic nuclear weapons", neutron bombs, or anything fourth generation.
What is different today about my promotion of nuclear devices is that the nuclear devices and their yields are described more appropriately, and we find them being able to address much larger swaths of 9/11 anomalous evidence THAN ANY OTHER 9/11 CONSPIRACY-DU-JOUR including AE9/11Truth fan favorite of limited hang-out nano-thermite.
You wrote: "My God, is there no limit to the paranoid conspiracy theories?"
When I read your comment, I was thinking "my God, is there no limit to poo-poo'ing disinfo agents today demonstrating their uncritical thinking skills by NOT even skimming the researched and referenced materials provided as evidence?" And,
"The disinfo campaign against rational and valid nuclear discussions is still ongoing today.
DISCLAIMER: Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written or uttered publicly a single sentence on his 9/11 speculation. But in the decade leading up to 9/11, he wrote many technical papers on aspects of next generation nuclear weapons.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
What part of Dr. Gsponer's abstract do you think is "paranoid conspiracy theory."
+++ Abstract
"The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc."
+++ end
While Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written or uttered publicly a single sentence on his 9/11 speculation, I've stood on his shoulders, Dr. Wood's shoulders, and vetted & rescued nuggets of truth from quite the lot of "(dis)information" sources.
Here's my work:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
If it is just "paranoid conspiracy theories", should be easy for you to debunk. Unless that phrase -- originally made popular by the CIA/NSA/FBI to belittle alternative theories on public events [JFK assassination] -- flags you as a disinfo agent / bot, overly reliant on generic but cutting entries from your database. Your goal maybe then isn't to "vet or debunk" but to "distract".
//
x338 Maxwell C. Bridges : Muted explosions
2022-04-21
Dear Mr. Gary Fowler, Thank you for posting that video of the fire fighters talking about their impressions, albeit propagating some misinformation.
The following numbers can be tweaked, but the conclusion is still the same. The towers fell at near gravitational acceleration, so let's say 10 seconds, and let's round the number of floors to an even 100.
The firefighters said that "it was as if the towers were taken out (blown out by explosives) floor by floor. Pop-pop-pop!"
If that were case (with the given rounding of numbers assumptions), the audio evidence would have 10 explosions a second, and the firefighters would not have been able to count them or mimic what they heard: "boom-boom-boom". No, the cadence would have been too fast to approximate.
Instead, the destruction cadence that they suggest -- and that video captures -- indicates a muted explosive boom once every half or third second, which translates into detonation levels, say, every 5th or 10th floors (or greater).
"Muted explosions" is an important concept, because conventional chemical based explosives use the medium of air to transmit destructive energy to structural elements at a distance from the detonation point; because of this, they are loud, and in the case of 9/11 would have been deafening for anyone within 1/4 mile. (Hearing loss was not one of the ailments exhibited by surviving first responders and witnesses.)
Late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices -- based on neutron bombs -- release 80% of their already tactical yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons. Certainly, this travels through the medium of air and through the molecular structure of content, but this isn't using air (e.g., sudden changes in air pressure) as a medium for destroying content. As such, the destruction measured out by energy left behind deep within and throughout the molecular structures of the content in the cone-shaped beam of highly energetic neutrons would ~not~ necessarily be loud and would comparably be less than chemical based explosives.
Of course, non-pure fusion devices would need to be hybrid with fission (to generate the requisite heat for fusion), and all traditional fission weapons typically use a conventional kick-starter chemical charge to ram the nuclear materials into one another to start the reaction. The point is, those kick-starter charges -- not designed for destruction -- probably can be heard and at the cadence counted by firemen, and kick-back from the kick-starter charge is probably what recordings captured as "squibs" on the faces of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the dustification destruction wave.
Allow me to repeat myself on an important Gedankenpunkt: "energy left behind deep within and throughout the molecular structures of the content in the cone-shaped beam of highly energetic neutrons."
What would that look like? What effects would it have?
Although the following "isn't quite right", it is a useful analogy. Imagine the trapped water molecules in, say, concrete. The energy left behind in the wake of a highly energetic neutron beam would have been in the form of heat. So, imagine those water molecules instantly turning into super super super hot steam, whose expanding volumetric pressure would in effect blow apart and "dustify" concrete from within and throughout.
Of course, the agregates and rebar in concrete would react even more radically, ablating where the vaporization of the leading edge happens so suddenly it sends a violent shock wave throughout the rest of the material blowing it apart. FTR, while the outer wall assemblies and the inner core are well represented in the debris pile, what isn't well represented are the metal floor pans, trusses, and rebar used in the concrete floors... until you see leaking out of the findings of various agencies studying the dust that it had a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres (that takes an extremely hot heat source to generate.)
//
x340 Leon Prevot : dustified in mid air
2022-04-21
The steal columns that lingered after the collapse, which then dustified in mid air, maybe 60 plus stories, was the tell tale sign for me.
x342 Maxwell C. Bridges : not "dustified in mid air"; telescope down
2022-04-21
Dear Mr. Leon Prevot, The remnants of the inner-core that remained standing for a few moments after the collapse ("the spire") were ~NOT~ dustified in mid-air. This is a point that Dr. Wood factually gets wrong. When you go beyond one perspective of the video and study other view points, it becomes clear that the spire sort of telescoped on itself and fell over, albeit leaving dust lingering in the air where it once was.
It is certainly valid to study what caused the sudden telescoping and falling of the spire.
I speculate into why the spire was even present as a demolition anomaly... in both towers. I conclude the spire was a necessary feature.
My premise is late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels in towers, 1 detonation level in WTC-4, 5, 6. TBD WTC-7.) The FGNW used a conventional explosive (back-kick seen as a squib on tower faces) to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for fusion. The fusion stage, instead of letting its highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernal and chain react, are allowed to escape in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, fanning out upwards), 80% of its already tactical yield.
Owing to the multi-stage process and maybe even a notable firing duration, each FGNW was required to be mounted on a structure that would be guaranteed to remain stable for the ignition. The FGNW mounted lower in the tower did not destroy the inner-core above them. Their cone-shaped output was aimed away from the inner-core. Only at the far range of its cone-shaped neutron emission several floors above the ignition level were the wall assemblies grazed.
That grazing resulted in the artifact that I like to call "the smoking wall assemblies": wall assemblies that fell outside the structure and were "streaming off" dust and smoke and "steam", as if they'd been heated to an extent that they could cook / burn off material (e.g., paint, insulation) that might have been previously attached.
I think the 20% of the FGNW's nuclear yield in the form of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP gave us "the steel doobies": the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly were wrapped together by their three spandrels. The wall assemblies were three stories high, yet the wide spandrels at all three levels were heated to a level such that they became pliable and allowed the blast wave to wrap them up.
The FEMA/NIST videos of the Freshkills scrap yard (even after a great amount of evidence was scrapped and shipped to China) gave us "the smoked steel doobie". Similar to above, except that it was shorter and one end had weird wavey bends that began to separate at the welds the four sheets of each face of a hollow box column, as if that were the burned end of a "steel doobie that got part-way smoked".
[I digress. The FEMA/NIST videos -- I assume -- on some of the best recording equipment available to man at the time demonstrate to this day that radiation did leach off of the debris in cases. Many who were raised on rabbit-eared televisions might not even notice some of the snow, sparkle, and glitches, except for when it is so obvious it can't be ignored. Video tape technology is very susceptible to radiation, and those videos have the most catastrophic imagery failures. It'd be working fine until they turned and pointed at something "hot", and then the video glitch beyond recognition keeping the audio. Digital camera technolgy also registers radiation, but as aparkles and flashes. Did you know that there is an app to turn your smart phone into a Geiger Counter? Of course, 9/11 is before smart phones, but the camera technolgy is the same. Hence Mayor Bloomberg's orders to prohibit unauthorized cameras and Geiger counters at Ground Zero. They could have caught the glitches.]
Wherease the spire wasn't dustiried, the concrete floors, their supporting metal pans and trusses, and building content (including humans and aircraft parts) in the cone-shaped lines of fire were dustified.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
Part 8: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine
x344 Maxwell C. Bridges : figurative radioactive fallout from 9/11 could still damage
2022-04-27
https://www.facebook.com/evelynine.ruthtay/posts/389585223088366?comment_id=339795391581415&reply_comment_id=1178965782940042¬if_id=1651095793482880¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
The government is still blocking the 9/11 Grand Jury because the figurative radioactive fallout from 9/11 having had nuclear components could still damage institutions, agencies, and even the existence of the states.
This is me, plopping down my research and written up homework assignment.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x346 Lawrence Fine : A singular device
2022-04-27
Maxwell Bridges Mr. Bridges almost has it correct. I have resigned to a simple conclusion. YES, thermo nuclear devices were utilized in the destruction of the Twin Towers but not in the TOP DOWN explosive dismemberment.
IMO, A singular device
x348 Maxwell C. Bridges : an observable wave going from top to bottom
2022-04-27
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, given that the tower's destruction has an observable wave going from top to bottom and in cases observable squibs at the ignition level preceding the destruction wave, then you'll have to provide a few more details to your "not in the TOP DOWN explosive dismemberment" and "IMO, A singular device."
... Oh wait a minute. Mr. Fine. If you are peddling a deep underground nuclear device owing to the geological formation under WTC-4 and discussed in other FB carousels, please don't do that under my top-level comment.
Be courteous. Make your own top-level comment and provide the defense of your premise there.
Here's my discouragement of you discussing that here [and you can defend my attack under the top-level comment that you'll be making, as per the edict of the previous paragraph.]
++++
Each building in the WTC needs to be considered as separate events, and may or may not have used similar destructive mechanisms. So your premise of "IMO, A singular device" dies a sudden death with the fact that WTC-1 and WTC-2 represent two separate events and could not have succumbed in the manner observed without there being at least two separate device, one for each tower.
Assuming you make that clarification to your premise, don't be pulling in the WTC-4 geological formation erroneously, calling it nuclear evidence. How did it not damage the slurry walls yet somehow damage a tower? How did the North wing of WTC-4 survive while its main edifice at that building juncture was leveled to the ground and most importantly not sucked below ground where that geological formation -- which was known to exist from historical geological surveys -- was allegedly carved out by your device? How did that device also not destroy WTC-4's gold vaults or the old subway tunnels used for service entrances where a semi was found abandoned but loaded with gold?
9/11 had money as a motivating goal: (1) ONI at Pentagon was investigating the missing $2.3 trillion; (2) WTC-7 had SEC records destroyed for cases then in progress; (3) the re-opening of the stock markets laundered tons of money, with one small example being put-options placed against the airlines involved; (4) the vaults under WTC-6's custom house -- with confiscated weapons, guns, money -- were emptied prior to 9/11.
This subset of the actual money trail (before even considering the war profiteering) suggests that the gold in WTC-4 underground vaults was important, and thus figuratively "nukes" the notion that the geological formation under WTC-4 had any other cause but ancient geological events.
Here's an example of an earlier carousel spin that should have knocked down your single-nuke-per-tower hobby-horse:
https://www.facebook.com/lorenzonine/posts/10164178992945046?comment_id=10164183670340046
//
Another spin
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911CONSENSUS/posts/2992241680874515/?comment_id=2995501487215201&reply_comment_id=3009616859136997
++++
2022-07-08
https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=1271643723373204%2C1268216043715972¬if_id=1656851482804067¬if_t=group_activity&ref=notif
x350 Lawrence Fine : Links to his nuclear premise using WTC-4
2022-04-27
Meme: WTC-4 was heavily damaged by the perimeter columns from the east wall of the south tower when the tower was demolished but it remained "standing" in spite of the "subsidences" (plural), two 40' spheroid cavities, discovered during cleanup that were not represented in the pre 9/11 geotechnical survey.
https://lorenzonine.wixsite.com/nineelevensynthesis
https://youtu.be/YZQhItjqkiI Richard Gage on seismic activity
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/09/08/a-morning-that-shook-the-world/
\video of corner and buckling columns: https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif
Project Plowshare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
https://youtu.be/kpjFU_kBaBE
SOLKYM - https://youtu.be/VJmG0DRU0Rc
#ninelevenbuildingnumberfour
x352 Maxwell C. Bridges : monetary motive precludes underground nukes
2022-07-08
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, The WTC-4 main edifice was leveled neatly at the line that demarcated its North wing, while sparing the gold vaults and old subway tunnels re-purposed into service tunnels where they found an abandoned truck and trailer loaded with gold whose amounts from the trailer and the vaults are never made public. They don't talk about any gold loss or to what degree the gold heist was foiled.
The take-away for you is that this monetary motive in execution on 9/11 would preclude in the planning the ignition of nuclear devices (a) positioned at depths way below the basements/vaults of WTC-4 and (b) whose energy output and nuclear yield is somehow routed through un-damaged slurry walls to somehow be involved in WTC-2's demise and (d) not affect the street level or WTC-4's North wing.
Your meme outright lies when it states "two 40' spheroid cavities, discovered during cleanup that were not present in the pre-9/11 geotechnical survey."
To the tolerances of the improved equipment over the various eras when the pre-9/11 surveys were completed, they knew there were geological anomalies under where they built WTC-4, but not the depth and extent (because unlike the cleanup operation, the earlier surveys did not have the luxury of excavating it to get its exact dimensions.)
You make the error of discounting the truth of those several early surveys -- to the tolerances of their methods -- documenting an anomaly of unknown size. You conflate this geological artifact with the theme of 9/11 having nuclear components in a misguided and deceitful way that only serves to poison the well of 9/11 Truth and the true implementation of the tactical FGNW.
Planting seeds for latter-day lurker readers. No need for Mr. Fine and I to make another revolution on his flawed WTC-4 analysis carousel, because here's one of those early spins "Chapter 6: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine".
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
Mr. Fine and I do agree that 9/11 had nuclear components. Here's my 9/11 nuclear speculation.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x354 Lawrence Fine : Absolute balderdash
2022-07-08
Absolute balderdash 🙂 OH! and poppycock 😉
x356 Lawrence Fine : with the EXCEPTION of the thermonuclear events
2022-07-08
with the EXCEPTION of the thermonuclear events. Good luck and good night.
Part 9: FGNW and OKC
x358 Maxwell C. Bridges : OKC used FGNW, owing to the fingerprints of nuclear involvement, similar to 9/11
2022-04-
Dear Mr. Chris Cox, After you study what late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices could do based Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal on FGNW, the evidence of their tactical nuclear yield in observable in more than a couple "big" events.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
I believe that OKC used FGNW, owing to the fingerprints of nuclear involvement, similar to 9/11. And what a coincidence that the same team that tried to explain away OKC as fertilizer truck bombs led the charge on 9/11 with pile driving blocks through the path of greatest resistance and near free-fall accelerations while also pulverizing and ejecting content, and with no extra energy added beyond airplane impacts and jet fuel & office furnishing fires.
Here's my write up on part of 9/11 at the WTC>
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Something I don't often discuss is that the placement of the multiple FGNW devices in the other WTC buildings (WTC-4,-5, -6) was different than the towers, in that all devices were mounted on the same level or plane. (The towers deployed 4 FGNW per detonation levels, and 6-12 detonation levels.) Their cone-shaped output of highly energetic neutrons was aimed upwards but away from critical structure, such as the very walls the FGNW is mounted to. (Hence the WTC-6 crater that spared its vaults sufficiently for FEMA to claim they were already emptied.)
WTC-4 was cut and leveled at a neat line with the (surviving) north Wing. They've been hush about the original and final amounts of gold contained in those vaults, as well as the abandoned semi loaded with gold in the old WTC-4 subway tunnels re-purposed into delivery access.
WTC-5 had these neat circular anomalies on its roof that disinfo Woodsian DEWers complain are "beams from space." Closer to their true nature, the circular holes represent the diameter and effective neutron-targeting region of the cone-shaped output of a FGNW.
The topic is OKC, and its damage patterns -- somewhat cylindrical in its strike pattern. I recall reading about at least one other device that did not go off. [Fracticide between FGNW is an issue with poor planning or timing, leading to nuclear fizzle and FGNW not meeting their expected nuclear yields.]
FTR, FGNW (particularly late-3rd/early-4th) use a conventional chemical charge to kick-start a small fission stage whose sole purpose is generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage. Instead of letting the neutrons bounce around in the kernel and chain-react, the highly energetic neutrons are allowed to escape -- the premise of the neutron bomb -- but in a targeted fashion and at tactical yields.
USGS (9/11) dust samples show the finger prints of fission with Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities. [I recall the OKC studies having stilted issues as well.] The tritium report was scope-limited to building content and not into speculating that the tritium measured in the run-off (haphazardly and un-systematic) came from FGNW.
OKC was trial run for 9/11. Among the lessons learned, don't use local patsies. Coordinate your devices better, because nuclear fizzle (having many forms from nothing to Chernobyl-like) is a real. Have multiple events at once so they can be constantly confused with one another. Have a ruse like an aircraft to explain the initiation of destruction, because trucks with fertilizer bombs don't cut it (and FGNW are fairly precision.)
//
Part 10: FGNW Discussions with Henry Hansteen, Peter Karig, Winston Smith, Greg Skomaroske, Amybeth Hurst, Maverick D. Powell, Steve Ryan, Bob Solo, Richard Dihlman
x360 Henry Hansteen : the upper block begins to tilt
2022-06-24
https://www.facebook.com/henry.hansteen/posts/pfbid0ohAHGkTXhwBThiDf7qWQzbpr2MjUg79h6A3zpyd3s9EDM9AhcRpyxtiXVGKoXU8Zl?comment_id=2857748057850910&reply_comment_id=1269200836950736¬if_id=1656023235021647¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Notice that at the start of the demolition of WTC2, the upper block (which consists of about thirty floors and is structurally sound above the jet impact) begins to tilt significantly to the left. But rather than continue to tilt off the steel structure below, it explodes and disintegrates mid tilt, followed by the undamaged steel frame below. This is just one of many examples of the government/media conspiracy theory contradicting the evidence. Obviously, their claim that the upper block served as a "pile driver" and caused the much thicker, stronger, heavier, cold undamaged steel frame below to explode and disintegrate didn't happen. There was no "pile driver". But there were extreme high temperature, nearly inextinguishable underground fires, molten and vaporized steel, and high tech incendiary material present after the demolitions.
x362 Maxwell C. Bridges : my write-up
2022-06-24
Here's my write-up.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x364 Henry Hansteen : no nuclear bombs were detonated in New York City on 9/11/01
2022-06-24
Maxwell Bridges no nuclear bombs were detonated in New York City on 9/11/01. That, like no planes, holograms, and space beams, is disinformation that helps the real terrorists get away with their crimes by making people who question their absurd conspiracy theory seem just as out of touch with reality as those who believe it.
For evidence-based research by highly credible professionals, see the website below. And I'll ask you the same thing I ask people who still believe the government's absurd 9/11 conspiracy myth. Let me know if you disagree with any of the evidence or analysis on the website below. All the professionals behind this website as well as all other credible 9/11 researchers reject the nuclear bomb theory because the evidence contradicts it.
http://911speakout.org
911SpeakOut.org | The World Needs Truth
911SPEAKOUT.ORG
x366 Peter Karig : The nuclear bomb idea is absurd
2022-06-24
Henry Hansteen Yep. The nuclear bomb idea is absurd
x368 Maxwell C. Bridges : *snap-of-the-fingers* I dispell your "absurd" hypnotic suggestion!
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Peter Karig, With this *snap-of-the-fingers* I dispell your "absurd" hypnotic suggestion! Absurb is thinking that you can disprove the 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case without first reading it and identifying its fallacies. That is not how reasoned debate goes.
//
x370 Maxwell C. Bridges : I'll be damned?!! I've already had one FB carousel spin with you
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, With this *snap-of-the-fingers* I dispell your hypnotic suggestion! You'll not defeat a substantiated FGNW premise by lamely associating it with other individual premises that indeed were manufactured disinformation designed to undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement from within (e.g., no planes, holograms, and space beams). Yes, even the "nuclear premise" championed by many involving single devices per tower and deep underground was manufactured disinformation. FGNW is not "that" nuclear premise. You ding your own integrity and your alleged "open-mind" when you so casually brush it off.
Absurb is thinking that you can disprove the 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case without first reading it and identifying its fallacies. That is not how reasoned debate goes.
I'll give you a point for linking in 9/11SpeakOut(dot)org, except that (a) their home page does not address the FGNW premise, (b) you did not do your homework to present an applicable reference, and (c) I have had less-than-satisfactory communication with various individuals at 9/11SpeakOut that was saved and already re-published.
I've communicated with David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Frank Legge, but was blocked by gatekeeper Chandler from communicating with Jonathon Cole. Not making this up.
As one example, you'll find interesting the "Chapter 11: FGNW Discussions with Wayne Coste" at:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
However, once you get there, you'll be blown away by "Chapter 7: FGNW Discussions with AlienScientist, Henry Hansteen, Adam Fitzgerald".
I'll be damned?!! I've already had one FB carousel spin with you where, again, right out of the gate you attempt to associate FGNW with one of the aforementioend manufactured disinformation premsies.
In case you were curious, here is a direct FB link to that discussion.
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10155820409191269?comment_id=10155830555616269¬if_id=1542828112272844¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
What is most sad is that discussion was three years ago. Had all that time to debunk my FGNW premise [which did evolve] and you squandered away the time doing nothing by spinning guilt-by-association lameness.
//
x372 Henry Hansteen : spreading disinformation that's flatly contradicted by the evidence
2022-06-24
Maxwell Bridges please stop spreading disinformation that's flatly contradicted by the evidence and all of the credible, respected 9/11 researchers. None of them support your nuclear bomb fantasy. They reject it because the evidence proves it didn't happen. Again, please don't post this sort of disinformation on my Facebook page. It's harmful to the 9/11 truth movement and helps the real terrorists get away with their crimes.
Of course David Chandler and his colleagues want nothing to do with you. They know you're spreading disinformation and ignoring the hard evidence and research. I support them blocking you. Disinformation trolls should be exposed and flushed at every opportunity. Please do not comment with this nonsense on my Facebook page again or I'll have to block you too. I know a disinformation troll when I see one. And I have studied your nuclear bomb disinformation. That's why I also know it's nonsense.
x374 Maxwell C. Bridges : Big on blarney and small on specifics
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Please stop inserting your agenda-toting hypnotic suggestion into what should be a sincere discussion on a valid 9/11 topic. You do not have the moral authority to call any premise wrong (or misinformation, or disinformation) if you do not substantiate it, as I have done.
You make the claim that my FGNW premise is "contradicted by the evidence and all of the credible, respected 9/11 researchers." You prove the claim. Onus is on you. I've made it easier on you by consolidating a portion of the evidence with my analysis that relates it to FGNW. So, yes. Using the evidence that any 9/11 theory-du-jour must include to be complete, please explain (a) how it was allegedly not FGNW and (b) how it was allegedly caused by something else explained with detail.
Be careful. It is a trick assignment. Why? Because (a) no other "something else" addresses even a fraction of the evidence (e.g., horseshoes, arches/sags, steel doobies, FEMA/NIST camera failures, audio signature, excessive energy, duration of hot-spots). And because (b), you'll find that "credible, respected 9/11 researchers" can be bought-and-paid-for just like anybody else: politicians, scientists, doctors. I don't relish legitimately bashing others for their blatant failings on technical matters, but I have a hunch that for just about any "credible, respected 9/11 researcher" name that you would bring up already has write-up's from me on the issues in their work. Save yourself some grief; find this analysis on my blog; know what my argument is going to be before it smacks you across the face and proves those 9/11 researchers undeserving of being credible and respected.
You wrote: "None of them (the alleged credible, respected 9/11 researchers) support your nuclear bomb fantasy."
When you misstate my "fantasy" as a singular "nuclear bomb", it indicates quite clearly that you haven't read my FGNW premise which calls for 4 devices per detonation level and 6-12 detonation levels. Your failings is their failings, because (a) they haven't read the FGNW premise and (b) they have not published anything to debunk it: section by section. And the embarrassing one (c) they probably created FAQ#13/#15 in a successful attempt to debunk "nuclear blasts"; the issue is that highly-energetic neutrons emitted from a FGNW is a completely different mechanism of destruction than a "blast." In other words, the FAQ outs itself as controlled opposition attempting to smear all forms of nuclear involvement without even mentioning neutron bombs or their bastard hybrid off-spring FGNW.
You wrote: "They reject it because the evidence proves it didn't happen."
You make the claim, you defend the claim. I doubt that you will find one article from any of those bought-and-paid-for "credible, respected 9/11 researches" who legitimately discusses the evolution of nuclear weapons or who mentions specifically neutrons bombs and their evolution into FGNW, or "exotic weapons."
You wrote: "Again, please don't post this sort of disinformation on my Facebook page. It's harmful to the 9/11 truth movement and helps the real terrorists get away with their crimes."
Again, you have no basis to hypnotically suggest that FGNW is disinformation, and you've had three years to get your ducks in a row and accomplish the task.
What hurts the 9/11 truth movement is when duped useful idiots, such as yourself, aren't willing to question and study (a) the weaknesses of existing premises [e.g., NT] and/or (b) an alternative analysis [e.g., FGNW] that addresses wider swaths of the evidence. It exposes you as a hypocrite, because you aren't open-minded enough to take on this validating task. When this character failing happens repeatedly, it exposes an agenda that isn't following "the Truth."
You wrote: "Of course David Chandler and his colleagues want nothing to do with you. They know you're spreading disinformation and ignoring the hard evidence and research."
Did you get this from the horse's mouth, or are you making this up?
David Chandler and his colleagues want nothing to do with me, because among my super-powers are persistence, a fanaticism for Truth, and an ability to research and to understand technical things. I expose the weaknesses of their premises in back-handed ways.
Here's a great example. Along my 9/11 evolutionary path, I became enamoured with Dr. Judy Wood's text book "Where did the towers go": 500 pages long, over 500 full-color images, large page format, not cheap. I earnestly sought several times assistance from others in validating it or debunking it (while rescuing nuggets of truth) to the extreme that I would purchased and gift (and ship) a copy of the book to others (with their permission). David Chandler was one. He skirted the task in a monumental fashion, and gave not one iota of substantiated commentary to justify a blanket verdict "disinfo."
Later with my own research efforts and second pass through Dr. Wood's book, I was able to legitimately debunk it [although I had hoped to validate it; bummer for me, had to alter my views.] Her book had seemingly lots of low-hanging fruit. She dropped lots of dangling innuendo, connected no dots, drew no conclusions, and did a shitty job of nuclear research.
Why couldn't David Chandler (and others) assist in debunking Dr. Wood's DEW theories?
Because in the process, nuggets of truth would get separated from the chaffe and would have to be addressed by any-and-all would-be 9/11 conspiracies. They couldn't/wouldn't address anything specific in her book, because their premise had no explanation for it.
You wrote: "I support them blocking you."
El-oh-el. I can still communicate with David Chandler through two different channels. Wayne Coste did the most ludicrous gymnastics to avoid finding a venue (even within FB) to have a rational discussion; when it did happen, he lost. Their website has never allowed commentary. Chandler only cock-blocked me from using their 911SpeakOut website to directly converse with Jonathon Cole, because at that time (and still today) I have the receipts on what makes NT a 9/11 limited hang-out.
You wrote: "Disinformation trolls should be exposed and flushed at every opportunity."
You outed yourself as said "disinformation trolls." You see, I did my homework, have it in presentation form, and allow it to be discussed there and where I champion it in Facebook. You can't even bring yourself to read it, and this after three years of it being on your direct radar. For shame.
You wrote: "Please do not comment with this nonsense on my Facebook page again or I'll have to block you too."
The onus has been on you to prove it "nonsense". Hasn't happened.
You wrote: "I know a disinformation troll when I see one."
Every time you look at yourself in the mirror while brushing your teeth.
You wrote: "And I have studied your nuclear bomb disinformation. That's why I also know it's nonsense."
Liar. (a) FGNW on 9/11 is not about a singular "nuclear bomb" and was never described that way in my work. (b) Any "nonsense" that you see should be flagged by section and brought to my attention about why it is wrong.
Ergo, you have ~not~ studied my work. This carousel spin through your hypnotic suggestion matches the last spin I had with you. Big on blarney and small on specifics.
P.S. If your argument can only be defended by blocking your opponent, then it is a weak argument. In your case, your argument is so devoid of facts and details, it outs you as a disinfo-bot. Rest assured, this exchange is being preserved for re-publishing later.
//
x376 Henry Hansteen : stop posting your idiotic disinformation
2022-06-24
Maxwell Bridges I asked you twice to stop posting your idiotic disinformation on my Facebook page. So what do you do? You do what any loose some troll would do. You repeat the same delusional nonsense.
At least try to show a little bit of self-respect or pride. Don't stick around where you're unwanted and unwelcome. Go away troll. You've been exposed.
x378 Maxwell C. Bridges : you could have done me a great, positive service if you would have taken the time to point out exactly what was in error!
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Your multiple requests to have me "stop posting ... idiotic disinformation" were unfounded and heeded even before you asked, because I've posted nothing "idiotic" or "disinformation."
But golly, if I *had* posted something either "idiotic" or "disinformation," you could have done me a great, positive service if you would have taken the time to point out exactly what was in error! Armed with your improved analysis, I would have re-considered what I posted and offered apologies for having led your loyal Facebook followers astray.
Alas, that "improved analysis" from you -- those nuggets of wisdom that I yearn for because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on my FGNW premise -- failed to convince me. Hell, it failed to convince you, as it failed to make it over the keyboard and in a message to me: "here is where you are wrong exactly!"
Instead of "improved analysis", all I get from you is hypnotic suggestion to your loyal Facebook followers.
In all of our exchanges (today and 3 years ago), you've refused to demonstrate an open-mind or an ability to make a coherent argument either in support of your premise or in debunking mine: except that aforementioned "hypnotic suggestion."
You may have the last word in this thread, unless you address me directly or present something needing a response.
If you feel so weak in your debate abilities or "improved analysis" that you are tempted to block me (unfriend me, whatever), then be mindful of the huge red flag it raises for latter-day lurker readers, here and elsewhere. Should I discover your banishment or censorship, I'll be sad, and will add it as a post-script to my re-publication of this conversation, giving your words and actions life and meaning outside the confines of Facebook.
//
x380 Winston Smith : No planes? No brains!
2022-06-24
No planes? No brains!
x382 Maxwell C. Bridges : all champions of no planes on Facebook are agent-bots
2022-06-24
No, sorry, Mr. Winston Smith. I've come to the realization that almost all champions of no planes on Facebook are agent-bots poisoning the well of other verified (9/11) conspiracies [and alternative thinking]. None can argue the NPT position even lamely, and they are paid (or programmed) to not change their minds despite overwhelming evidence (or URL) that -- get this bot-tell -- can not even visit, let alone discuss.
Put down a link and ask them to paste in a quote or image URL from that source, and then discuss what might be wrong about it, you will inspired all sort of lame database rebuttals and insults but nary a word or sentence to indicate they even followed the link. Certainly no quotes or image URLs.
Here's one that trips them up.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
x384 Greg Skomaroske : Thats rediculous
2022-06-24
Maxwell Bridges Thats rediculous. No one can saythat any of tis info is accurate because the government is lying about so much and nearly everything. They need to be brought up on treason charges nd punished severily for crimes against humanity is what i am sure of! This was a coup de tat for the Military to keep getting their regular budget they were robbing the American people for already and then they wanted more despite being missing 2.3 trillion between 1995 and Sept 10th 2001 as reported by Donald Rumsfeld
x386 Greg Skomaroske : takes some intelligence with the totality of all the info to come to the grand conclusion
2022-06-24
Maxwell Bridges Your asking them to prove a negative and that is impossible and why it then takes some intelligence with the totality of all the info to come to the grand conclusion.
x388 Maxwell C. Bridges : none are permitted to actually discuss vetted evidence of aircraft
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Greg Skomaroske, I put down a link to evidence of real aircraft involvement at the WTC. Rather than posting a quotation (or URL to an image) from that article, your response is: "Thats rediculous." And it is followed by grammatically challenged database entries that have little to do with defending or debunking the NPT@WTC premise.
Your second response hot on the heels of your first response also doesn't defend or debunk NPT@WTC. And it contains a logical fallacy and meaningless database entry with no applicability to the NPT@WTC discussion. But if applicability there is, the onus is on you to prove it. You haven't.
Your wrote: "Your asking them to prove a negative."
Not true. I'm asking readers to objectively review all of the evidence. The link alone has vetted photographs (that no one has challenged or disputed or explained in an alternative fashion) of an aircraft.
Paste a quote or image URL from the link to prove that you at least "got on the same (web) page" for being able to legitimately carry forth in this discussion (without outting yourself as an agent-bot.)
See, Mr. Winston Smith, even when the agent-bots use persona-management software, none are permitted to actually discuss vetted evidence of aircraft.
//
x390 Maxwell C. Bridges : deceitfully extrapolating those factoids into the premise
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. அபà¯à®¤à¯à®²à¯ ரபீகà¯, Your claim -- as was mine for three years over a decade ago -- is that no planes impacted the WTC towers. I believed that too -- how embarrassing! But at least I was open to new evidence and analysis. Armed with such, I realized NPT@WTC was clever disinformation. F* me, man! I had to publicly apologize and recant, which I did.
Debunking NPT@WTC isn't my hobby-horse, and I only do it as a favor to sincere seekers of truth who were deceitfully and purposely duped by September Clues and other NPT@WTC nonsense.
An explanation is needed (by the wannabe-NPT@WTC-believers) for the physical evidence of real aircraft. My favorite is a portion of a plane's landing gear embedded between two hollow-box-columns of a WTC wall assembly that it managed to rip out of the backside of WTC-1 and fall into a parking lot near the towers and that was photographed from multiple angles before either WTC tower came down.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Remember: Just because they didn't serial-number identify found aircraft pieces and match them to the alleged commercial aircraft (and ignore that they might belong to a different make and model of aircraft than the alleged commercial planes), the most a sincere seeker of Truth can conclude is that the impacting aircraft might not have been the alleged commercial aircraft.
That extra step into "crazy" by deceitfully extrapolating those factoids into the premise "no planes at all at the WTC", that is the disinformation exposing itself. And it was necessitated because the Pentagon and Shanksville incidents have a shocking lack of physical evidence of aircraft and lack of following standard operating procedures (like rebuilding the aircraft from its pieces in a hangar). So disinfo NPT@WTC was spun up to poison the well on (9/11) conspiracies and smear the 9/11 Truth Movement as crazies.
If 9/11 had gone according to plan, both aircraft impacts would have more or less had their aircraft parts contained within the towers, and not escaping (like 10 pieces of landing gear and an engine that flew a couple football fields, bounced off a roof, and fell to the street), then they wouldn't have to do any cover-up to hide that the actual aircraft weren't the alleged commercial aircraft. Why? Because they knew that their chosen mechanisms of destruction (FGNW, tactical, 4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels) would ablate whatever aircraft evidence remained within the confines of the towers.
From my FB discussions of late, just about all champions of NPT@WTC are disinfo agents-bots who can't even follow a URL (above) and copy a quote or image URL to paste back into here as evidence that they visited that webpage. Consider this my bot-test for you.
//
+++++++++++
x392 Maxwell C. Bridges : title
2022-06-24
I've done my research, wrote out my homework, published it for review, and shopped my premise around all sorts of (FB) forums with the explicit purpose of having other sharp, intelligent, rational people debunk (or vet) the FGNW premise.
Sincere seekers of truth hold their opinions, follow & read my content, and stew on its possibilities and maybe other information to support my "bat-shit-crazy" 9/11 FGNW premise, or debunk it.
The insincere seekers? Why they play all sorts of games that only expose them as agent-bots. I mean, most provide their "book reviews without every having smelled the ink from the book's crack"; they try to debunk a premise without ever going to the URL where the premise is discussed and identifying section-by-section where the error is. The governments have long held that the best way to challenge uncomfortable (and damning) premises is to not even acknowledge it in the slightest or that it exists, because that ends up being a form of validation. I mean, if they address anything about it, that generates validating interest that didn't previously exist and raises more questions (like why they didn't go in and debunk it section-by-section).
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
At any rate, by their fruitful responses you will know them.
//
x394 Amybeth Hurst : all claiming to be fact
2022-06-24
In this thread, I see dozens of theories and all claim to be "fact." I also see several people blamed, all claiming to be fact. Thousands of people would have to have been involved for these buildings to have been imploded, and dozens of explosives experts to place the bombs, and 100+ security personnel to keep quiet. I guess anything's possible, but I just wish one of these people would have a guilty conscience and come forward.
x396 Maxwell C. Bridges : start with the wrong assumption, you'll come to wrong conclusions
2022-06-24
Dear Ms. Amybeth Hurst, trying to debunk theories based on the number of people involved is a weak argument. Thousands worked on the Manhattan project and other nuclear endeavors and keep it secret (until used) and the details need-to-know to this day.
Be that as it may, if you start with the wrong assumption, you'll come to wrong conclusions. You assume "dozens of explosives experts to place the bombs" to have the buildings implode, and security personnel keeping quiet.
"Dozens of explosives experts" would have been able to configure a demolition that had the appearance of a natural event at non-free-fall-accelerations and certainly without the blatant overkill pulverization.
The chemical bombs theory with or without NT is the wrong assumption, because indeed the logistics for just the towers would have had high risk of early exposure; the bomb sniffing dogs only had a few days off prior to 9/11, which is insufficient to achieve the pulverization for chemical based bombs.
However, when you examine the traces of nuclear involvement leaking out all over (including the USGS data tables on the dust, the scope-limited tritium report, and the NIST/FEMA "high-quality" videos of the debris pile and later Fresh Kills landfill), then considering late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) greatly simplifies logistics. Like bindings mounted to skis for later ski boot insertion, a much smaller team could install the FGNW mounting brackets and cabling over a long period of time without raising too much suspicion, even from bomb sniffing dogs.
I estimate 4 FGNW per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels per tower (1 detonation level for WTC-5, WTC-6). They only used a conventional chemical charge to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose is (not for destruction but) to generate heat for the fusion stage, which -- like its 1970's neutron bomb predecessor -- released its highly energetic neutrons but in a targeted fashion aimed upwards, emitted as a cone shape. This smaller number of devices could be "clicked" into their mounting brackets (each side of the inner-core aimed away from that inner core) in the few days dogs were away.
I did my homework, found the right references, extrapolated appropriately.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
At any rate, the boots-to-the-ground were probably Mossad for plausible deniability, while the Zionists in positions of authority made sure to stymie any sort of response until too late. (The number of war games scheduled for that day is over a dozen, and some involved insertion of fake radar blips.)
//
x398 Maverick D. Powell : Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth You guys really are pathetic
2022-06-24
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth You guys really are pathetic. You reply to a comment of mine w/ "is that the best you can do"? I ask you to answer a very simple question about the collapse of WTC7 & you delete the question? What have you got to hide? Maybe this question will be deleted too? Cowards & fraudsters.
x400 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE9/11Truth has always been controlled opposition
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Maverick D. Powell, The AE9/11Truth group has always been controlled opposition who slow-walked and severally down-played actions that they could have taken, research they could have done, etc.
I used to be a Woodsian DEWer, but the FAQ that allegedly debunks her theories gives no evidence that its authors ever smelled the ink from Dr. Wood's book crack and wastes 1/3 of its word count plugging the NT limited hang-out.
Despite requesting assistance in the debunking effort, I ended up debunking Dr. Wood's work on my own: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of research into nuclear weapons. Be that as it may, DEW is closer to the truth than NT.
AE9/11Truth does not acknowledge the limitations of NT in explaining all of the evidence, and they don't even try. The reason they don't debunk Dr. Wood's book chapter-by-chapter is that it presents evidence that they'd have to acknowledge and address.
AE9/11Truth has an FAQ that is a great example of quality disinformation. They attempt to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement without even mentioning neutron bombs or their FGNW offspring. Worse, they frame their argument as "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." Surprisingly, I have to agree, because blasts implies rapidly changing air pressure. FGNW, on the other hand, release 80% of their already tactical nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons that pass through materials and leave energy (usually in the form of heat) behind, deep and throughout the very molecular structure of the materials. Hardly moves air at all except when materials ablate after being run through by the DEW output.
How could AE9/11Truth and its respect PhD's miss the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal, who had also been writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
x402 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE9/11Truth don't follow truth where ever it leads
2022-06-24
Hey AE9/11Truth, The issue that you have is that if you objectively listen to these firemen and then try to match up the limited hang-out NT to the evidence, NT comes up short in so, so, so many ways. I mean, if NT was used for the pulverization of the towers, then how much overkill above-and-beyond amounts were needed to remain -- unspent from their pulverizing purposes -- to account for the duration of the under-rubble hot-spots, much less the evidence that these firemen talk about.
The issue for AE9/11Truth is that they don't follow truth where ever it leads and they don't follow the edicts of their patron saint, David Griffin, in considering ~all~ of the evidence. Disclaimer: Dr. Judy Wood has disinformation, but she does collect a shit-ton of evidence that all theories must address. When AE9/11Truth tried to debunk Dr. Wood (whose work is debunkable; I've done it), they provide no indication that they even smelled the ink in her book's crack and spend 1/3 of their meager word-count promoting the limited hang-out NT, and zero time addressing how NT can account for Dr. Wood's evidence.
Smoking gun link here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Dr. Andre Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11, has been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal. FGNW are essentially the devil spawn of those dreaded "neutron bombs" they scared us with in the 1970's and 1980's. They expell 80% of their already-tactical nuclear yield in a targeted fashion (aimed upwards, cone-shaped output) putting them ironically technically in the same category as DEW.
Dr. Gsponer hasn't written a single word about 9/11 to my knowledge. But I have, using his research that (purposely) coincidentally both Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood missed in their literature review in their respective works. For shame.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
//
x404 Steve Ryan : Thermite anyone?
2022-06-24
Thermite anyone?
2022-06-24
No.
x408 Maxwell C. Bridges : Nano-thermite has many issues to be considered the primary mechanism of destruction. Secondary Involvement? Maybe
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Steve Ryan, Nano-thermite has many issues to be considered the primary mechanism of destruction. Secondary Involvement? Maybe, but when this assumption is revisited after objectively considering (a) NT's weakness in addressing all of the evidence, like horseshoes, arches/sags, and steel doobies [nuggets of truth rescued from Dr. Wood's disinformation], like duration of hot-spots, like not found in dust samples of USGS, Paul Lioy, or RJLee Group; (b) FGNW being more capable of addressing all of the evidence, as well as why there were so many song-and-dance distractions and "controlling the narrative" detours.
This is an earlier version of my FGNW premise, but you'll find sections that legitimately slaughter the NT-sacred cow. Not my intention nor the pinging of PhD reputations, but that is simply where the truth leads.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x410 Richard Dihlman : Military grade Thermite
2022-06-24
Military grade Thermite.
x412 Maxwell C. Bridges : Secondary Involvement? Maybe
2022-06-24
Dear Mr. Richard Dihlman, Nano-thermite has many issues to be considered the primary mechanism of destruction. Secondary Involvement? Maybe, but when this assumption is revisited after objectively considering (a) NT's weakness in addressing all of the evidence, like horseshoes, arches/sags, and steel doobies [nuggets of truth rescued from Dr. Wood's disinformation], like duration of hot-spots, like not found in dust samples of USGS, Paul Lioy, or RJLee Group; (b) FGNW being more capable of addressing all of the evidence, as well as why there were so many song-and-dance distractions and "controlling the narrative" detours.... even NT as secondary starts looking like a questionable assumption.
This is an earlier version of my FGNW premise, but you'll find sections that legitimately slaughter the NT-sacred cow. Not my intention nor the pinging of PhD reputations, but that is simply where the truth leads.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
Part 11: FGNW Discussions with Bob Byron
x414 Maxwell C. Bridges : your lying-by-omission meme
2022-07-29
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/pfbid0TctjWdaAVxRXjrmrJoLVZieVFVi6aMt8FYxTNpLcTYVkZpYH2ufNgHa8VTCmwWAol?notif_id=1659081029442609¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
I take issue with your lying-by-omission meme, which wants to con the world into believing that super-duper nanothermite is the only mechanism that could possibly heat the WTC dust to 4000 degree F.
What is the alleged evidence of NT? It actually isn't NT, because that was only "found" in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones, but not in the dust samples of USGS, RJLee Group, Paul Lioy et al. But what do all the dust samples have in common? A high percentage of tiny iron spheres that takes that really high heat to create. Could something else achieve that? (Yes.)
And the dust samples show Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities (indicating a fission process), and then there was the tritium scope-limited report that Dr. Jones accepted unquestioned and unchallenged as the final authority on tritium (when all late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices have a fusion stage with tritium as the convenient building block.)
Here is the reference material that Dr. Jones (and Dr. Judy Wood) purposely missed in their literature review on possible nuclear means, thereby leaving out of consideration all "exotic weapons", that are documented below...
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Here's my extension from that:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x416 Bob Byron : the fires we see did not do it
2022-07-29
Maxwell Bridges the point here is, the fires we see did not do it.
we are not here for the critical analysis or the EXACT item causing what did occur.
with the THOUSANDS of different combinations of what it 'COULD BE', the FIRES PRESENT and GRAVITY is not one of them.
and those are the ONLY TWO options available for the official story.
but you refuse to enlighten people on that fact they have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support their hypothesized notions.
you only push what you want to push.
a method which is on par with those wanting to HIDE THE FACTS of 9-11
x418 Maxwell C. Bridges : the discussion (and research and public thought) tends to STOP there and go no further where Truth leads
2022-07-29
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, I agree with the first half of your comment.
Where you begin "but you refuse to enlighten people on the fact they (the government) have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support their hypothesized notions." Beep! Beep! FAIL!
Dude, I have a website and blog that are each older than a decade & a half! I've been enlightening people on "that fact" mentioned by you for quite some time in all sorts of venues -- consolidated for your reading pleasure on my re-purposing web efforts.
You continued with: "you only push what you want to push."
Dude, yes! It isn't that I never push for "that fact" which my blog handily disproves. The issue has been -- with 9/11 Truthers of your consensus brand -- is that the discussion (and research and public thought) tends to STOP there and go no further where Truth leads.
The meme talks about thermite, which is a limited hang-out, and to quote you: "a method which is on par with those wanting to HIDE THE FACTS of 9-11."
I've done my research, completed my homework, published it, and shopped it around precisely so that others would debunk it, because I don't relish being the sole "duped useful idiot" on my hobby-horse premise of 9/11 having nuclear components. I've collected and re-published those efforts at rational debate, just to prove that I gave it a good faith effort and quite often as it were with agents and bots, my discussion opponent did not give it a good faith effort in various inglorious and non-endearing ways.
Here is an earlier version of my premise with a title parallel to the infiltrated slow-walking of AE9/11Trtuh. It has sections that slaughter the NT sacred cow.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Me only pushing what I want to push?!! I push for Truth, and not some infiltrated consensus mini-truth or limited hang-out that stops rational thinking from coming to appropriate conclusions. Only the depths of the Truth can inspire the needed public change to government and agencies.
So, yeah. My FGNW premise -- debated and validated -- can still have figurative nuclear fall-out to institutions and agencies by a public revelation of 9/11 having nuclear components, and explains a whole slew of cover-up and deceitful actions all.along.the.way.
NT? Not so much. NT, which can't even logically and rationally address even a fraction of the evidence. NT, which can't even be vetted as truly existing at the WTC as per the dust samples of USGS, RJLee Group, Paul Lioy et al. Their dust samples had a high percentage of tiny iron spheres and Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities sample-to-sample (USGS), but they didn't have NT.
My push for truth, alas, means that I am often an instrument of the painful side-effects of YOUR cognitive dissonance. You've been duped by NT, man, and the true mechanisms of destruction have been suppressed.
//
Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
x420 Bob Byron : provide nothing BUT YOUR OWN words
2022-07-29
Maxwell Bridges "" Beep! Beep! FAIL! '
you claim "failure" yet you provide nothing BUT YOUR OWN words, to support you and the failure you claim.
Max, what I do here is show that the amazing NIST LEADERS making the assertions, have NO ACTUAL supporting evidence giving their scientific direction to 'hypothesize' a collapse scenario.
I show the NIST report has absolutely NO evidence offing that scientific direction to hypothesize that in 56 and 120 minutes, THOSE FIRES WE SEE CAUSED WHAT WE SEE.
and I can challenge ANYONE to show me wrong.
...even you.
You attack my person.(just like debunkers do)
So, then what do you do to show me wrong?
You point to your OWN WORDS rather than the NIST reports I am discussing.😎.
"I've done my research, completed my homework, published it"
GREAT!!!.....but that doesn't seem to do anything to assist you when you're confronting me.
I'm not here pushing anything BUT the FACT the NIST LEADERS have no supporting evidence WITHIN the NIST reports.
why is it people like you wave this fact off and seem to do NOT WANT others to know this FACT???
To me and many others, THAT is the one catalyst that is going to END 9-11 truth once and for all.
why not, that is how 9-11 truth STARTED.
In 2005 when the NIST reports were released, no one was discussing thremite.
Or DEMANDING explosives did it.
EVERYONE WANTED THEIR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that those fires we see and GRAVITY did it.
...that has never come to fruition.....and here we are.
x422 Maxwell C. Bridges : you get the triple X of failure in those spin cycles
2022-07-29
Dear Mr. Bob Bryon (BB), Kudos on your attempted carousel spin. Here's a summary.
BB: You never wrote about the [X] aspect of 9/11; you ignored it, you fool!
MCB: My legacy web efforts contradict that assertion, with [X] being covered in many conversations first elsewhere on the internet, but then consolidated in postings of my vanity sites.
BB: Yeah, but you provide nothing but your own words.
MCB: My words plus direct quotations from others with substantiating URLs. Most of my web effort -- had you bothered to skim it -- involves analyzing the words of others, sentence-by-sentence, and finding agreement or disagreement. This is a technique exhibited by Dr. David Griffin, and one that is logical and rational.
Yeah, so Mr. BB, you get the triple X of failure in those spin cycles. And I wrote the above without having read or analyzed your latest reply. And when I get to that, ... oh, wow!
You wrote: "You point to your OWN WORDS rather than the NIST reports I am discussing."
Dude, I already took a ride on that particular pogo-horse (e.g., NIST reports), saved my old-school Tik-Tok of the interaction, and re-purposed the experience to my web efforts. As my legacy proves, I have been known to quote liberally from those very same NIST reports, un-earthing nuggets of truth while exposing disinformation in the premise.
You wrote: "In 2005 when the NIST reports were released, no one was discussing thremite. Or DEMANDING explosives did it."
There is a reason for this. They knew when they scope-limited the NIST reports that nano-thermite with or without explosives was not the primary mechanism of destruction. In for a penny, in for a pound. Why demand something they knew didn't exist when they could go all "bat-shit-crazy" and demand something that any science-literate informed citizen would question? "Jet fuel, office furnishing fires, and gravity alone caused the upper-stories to accordion in on themselves at 2/3 gravitational acceleration whose dust went and pulverized the remaining structure through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while also ejecting wall assemblies and material laterally."
They went with the more stupid of the options -- FIRE AND GRAVITY --, because it switches the blame ("karma-avoidance") from the instigators to the public who should have had sufficient schooling to recognize the stupidity and put a stop to the nonsense. It becomes, "You, like any other non-science-challenged informed citizen, should have known that we so obviously lied, it becomes your fault for letting patriotism and racism blind you into permitting and championing autrocities abroad and deminishing of rights at home, right down to the militarization of our local law enforcement."
At any rate, Mr. BB, you seem to be stuck in an admirable rabbit-hole that is worthy of study, and a place where I have already been, but you have to keep moving.
What you are missing is the why? The why to their stupid efforts is that 9/11 had nuclear components. Fire and gravity is the first disinfo defensive position; nano-thermite is a fall-back disinfo defensive position. (Disinfo efforts into deep underground nukes and DEW beams from space also played flanking roles to keep public thought away from the FGNW sources.)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
Make sure you read the quotations from others that I inserted in the above work.
//
Part 12: FGNW Discussions with Dom Kelly, Francois Morin, Wolfgang Schräder, Jeremy Epstein, John McDermott, Paul Wenc
x424 Maxwell C. Bridges : spire is a very important artifact
2022-08-18
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?comment_id=776453663599875&v=776389933781196¬if_id=1660821013680129¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
The spire is indeed a very important artifact that debunks controlled demolition using chemical-based explosives (including mixtures with NT). It should also be noted that the other tower also had a brief artifact involving portions of the inner core remaining while the surrounding rest got decimated.
Many other reasons exist that rule out chemical-based explosives, but in route to that conclusion -- or to debunk it (e.g., many such explosives were the primary means of destruction --, that destructive mechanism would need to explain why / how such an artifact came about? Did it serve a purpose? How come it wasn't creamed with other content surrounding it?
Alas, this is where I let my FGNW hobby-horse out into the pasture to play.
To recap, FGNW are late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices involving 1970's neutron bomb evolution. Conventional chemical-based kicker starter charge, whose kick-back is observed on the face of the structure ahead of the destruction wave and often mislabeled "squibs." Kick starter charge initiated the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate heat for the fusion stage. Wasn't designed for destruction, so radiation and its spread via a blast were greatly reduced. The fusion stage, like neutron bombs, released its highly energetic neutrons, but in a targeted fashion: cone-shaped, aimed upwards and away from the 4 outer faces of the inner core on which they were mounted per detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels (speculated from the cadence that first responders could count of the kick-starters' "boom-boom-boom."
The point is, the ignition charge up time coupled with a possible measurable duration of the energetic output, meant that each FGNW should be mounted on a stable platform that wasn't going to be shot out from underneath it (by FGNW at the next lower detonation level). Otherwise, FGNW could misalign, hit / foul one another, and not produce the expected tandem tactical nuclear yields.
Ergo, spires, until the lowest mounted devices did their clean-up action.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
As an aside, though. When the collapse of the spire is viewed from other perspectives, it becomes clear that fell over while telescoping; this view only shows it telescoping and leaving dust hanging in the air. The real anomaly is how the spire suddenly and throughout its height would decimate itself and leave dust hanging in the air.
//
x426 Dom Kelly : part of the perimeter skeleton
2022-08-18
Dom Kelly
Maxwell Bridges what we see above is not the spire. It's part of the perimeter skeleton. The spire falls with the roof. Watch from 1:29
https://youtu.be/yaydhlOVogk
9 11 2nd Tower Collapse WTC1 Compilation Raw Footage
YOUTUBE.COM
x428 Maxwell C. Bridges : "loose-English" spire
2022-08-18
Dear Mr. Dom Kelly, you make an excellent point highlighting some "loose-English." What you are calling "the spire" is the radio antenna, and it does fall with the roof.
What I and others have call "the spire" was remnants of the inner core. You say that anomaly was "part of the perimeter skeleton." I disagree, because the perimeter skeleton were interlaced wall assemblies consisting of 3 hollow box columns 3 stories high and connected by spandrals. Their designed-in weak points were the connecting bolts connecting assemblies together. The debris pile had lots of examples of wall assemblies more or less in tact and recognizable for what they were.
I say that the anomaly appearing after the dustification and shedding of the perimeter wall assemblies was part of the inner-core. I speculate as to why such an artifact even existed (in both towers) via the initiation and duration of FGNW necessitating a stable mounting platform that both neighboring and lower detonation levels should not destroy. FGNW are in the category of DEW, and in this case released their highly energetic neutrons in a cone shape upwards and aimed away from the inner core.
//
x430 Francois Morin : Dustification anyone ?
2022-08-18
Francois Morin
Dustification anyone ??? ...
">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkZLlzOfVQ
Dr. Judy Wood IRREFUTABLE (HD Full Length)
YOUTUBE.COM
x432 Maxwell C. Bridges : dustification is the right term and it is DEW, but it isn't "Beams from Space."
2022-08-18
Dear Mr. Francois Morin, dustification is the right term and it is DEW, but it isn't "Woodsian DEW" or "Beams from Space." I recommend Dr. Wood's book, but it is disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, can't power her DEW with anything real-world, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. I discovered this on my second pass through her book and led to my own research on the matter.
DEW is closer to the truth than NT, so Dr. Wood beats Dr. Steven Jones. Alas, like all good disinfo agents, she parks her theories in cul-de-sacs.
The third link is my write-up on the 9/11 FGNW premise. However, you might find the first link more interesting. It consolidates discussions that I've had with various people when trying to shop around my premise and get it debunked. (I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this front.)
Alas, those attempts to get others to debunk my 9/11 FGNW failed, sometimes in rather spectacular fashion.
Faithful and ardent Woodsian DEWer Andrew Johnson is of note in the first round of discussions, where he banned me rather than address the weaknesses in Wood's book.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
The discussions with Wayne Coste and Roger Gloux are notable in this second collection.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
Again, this was my write-up of the 9/11 FGNW premise.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
Word of advice: now that you know your discussion opponent and his legacy, if you still want to champion Dr. Wood, make sure you advance the discussion. In other words, if you pick a discussion point that I have already debunked in my previous carousel spins, I'll be lazy and copy-paste what my responses were. But, if you leap-frog and see how your point might have been debunked by me years ago, then advancing the discussion would be disproving my debunking. No sense in us re-inventing the wheel and spinning on the same carousel; take the discussion further. Learn from your Woodsian colleagues failures and be better.
//
x434 Wolfgang Schräder : why turned steel to dust?
2022-08-18
The question is, why turned steel to dust.?
x436 Jeremy Epstein : accept what you are told
2022-08-18
Wolfgang Schräder the question is why are you asking questions? Be a good little boy and accept what you are told.
x438 Maxwell C. Bridges : turned into the tiny iron spheres
2022-08-18
Sehr geehrter Herrn Wolfgang Schräder, Sie fragten: "why turned steel to dust?"
That isn't a completely correct framing, because most of the wall assemblies and even the inner-core were found in the debris pile. The steel that was affected and isn't represented in the debris pile were the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors.
And they weren't turned to dust. They were turned into the tiny iron spheres that were well represented in all of the dust samples (even from the inside of neighboring buildings) and needed a very high heat source.
Here's what AE9/11Truth and others purposely missed in their nuclear literature reviews.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Here was my write-up of my 9/11 FGNW premise that comes closest to addressing all of the evidence.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
//
x440 Wolfgang Schräder : my question was more like a little joke
2022-08-18
Maxwell Bridges thanks, I knew that information, my question was more like a little joke, because many people don't ask fore it, they sleep in belive of the political stories.
x442 John McDermott : Mr. Heinz Pommer of Germany
2022-08-18
Mr. Pommer of Germany has published best explanation images and been recognized by Vets Today, another leading source.
x444 Maxwell C. Bridges : his discovery of camera scintillation
2022-08-18
Dear Mr. John McDermott, I have had discussions with Mr. Pommer. I commend him for his discovery of camera scintillation. However, I do not support his "nuclear chimney" premise and singular devices per tower.
Here's a repurposing of my discussions with Herr Pommer.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
Here's the research that he missed, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal before Dr. Jones "poo-poo-ed all forms of nuclear devices" and Dr. Wood wrote her book. Literature review fails.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written a single word about 9/11. I have. Here's me standing on his shoulders and that of Dr. Wood.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x446 John McDermott : my main reservation is no account for the top-to-bottom demo wave
2022-08-18
Maxwell Bridges my main reservation about Mr. Pommer's model is that it does not account for the top-to-bottom demo wave we all saw.
x448 Maxwell C. Bridges : Me thinks they don't want discussions.
2022-08-18
Dear Mr. John McDermott, [Please excuse this minor Facebook rant. They notify me of a comment tagged for me (e.g., from you) but provide no links in the notification to exactly WHERE that comment is, to the side of the video. I have to constantly expand the comments and go traipsing around until I can find the discussion. Me thinks they don't want discussions.]
At any rate, I had the same main reservations about Mr. Pommer's model. After I found Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal, and missed by Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood (and others), I knew FGNW better matched (a) the evidence, (b) the destruction, (c) the logistics, (d) the aftermath.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
So we're on the same page.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x450 Paul Wenc : NOT In the rubble/debris piles of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11
2022-09-11
Paul Wenc
September 11, 2019
·
What was NOT In the rubble/debris piles of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 ??
and
WHAT energy was required to create the enormous dust cloud that literally had people running for their lives ??
There were No desks (45,000), No chairs, No computers (45,000), No monitors, No telephones, No copy machines, No file cabinets (40,000), No toilets or sinks (14,700), No vending machines (5,000), No door knobs (40,000), No doors (22,000 and No fire extinguishers (650).
Also missing from the rubble was 8.8 million square feet X 4.5 inch thick lightweight concrete poured on each floor - Gone !!
Additionally, 1,100 bodies to date, have NEVER been IDENTIFIED. The bodies were Pulverized & Vaporized.
Less than 300 whole bodies were recovered from the rubble pile of the WTC towers along w more than 20,000 body parts.
343 Firefighters died on that day because they know that fire alone will not cause a sudden implosion / collapse of a skyscraper.
NEVER in history has a steel framed skyscraper collapsed from FIRE 🔥
ALL of the above and more, was the tremendous dust cloud which created dust several inches thick for blocks !!!
WTC 1, 2 & 7 were brought down via CONTROLLED DEMOLITION !!!
Jet Fuel is KEROSENE and burns ~ 1,000 degrees f less than the 2,770 degrees required to melt steel.
Military Grade Nano Thermite has been analyzed in the dust from three Independent Laboratories:
1. RJ LEE Report, May 2004: Nano-THERMITE
2. U.S. Geological Survey, 2005: Nano - THERMITE
3. Dr. Steven Jones, 2008: Nano - THERMITE
Six % of the dust contained Iron Microspheres.
LIQUID MOLTEN steel was identified under the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 & 7.
The Controlled Demolitions have been proven Scientifically, Forensically, by the Laws of Physics and First Responder eye witness testimony.
Aluminum Planes and resultant fire CANNOT destroy two 110 story steel framed skyscrapers through tens of thousands of tons of steel in 10 seconds ... Identically !!!
x452 Maxwell C. Bridges : write-up on the true mechanisms of destruction
2022-09-11
Here's my write-up on the true mechanisms of destruction deployed: late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW).
Sorry, my write-up is actually the second link. The first link is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
HERE is my write-up, because to my knowledge Dr. Andre Gsponer hasn't written a single word about FGNW relating to 9/11.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
//
x454 Maxwell C. Bridges : I'm his "lob", bitches
2022-11-
Admin Ax Eye Om more than once rescued my FB persona from suspension from this group; he has more than once restored postings. I'm his "lob", bitches, and in his very words he just gave me the stage! And let's face it: without some controversy on your site, it is uninteresting milktoast.
Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report - The World Trade Center
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Here's how my circus will be played out on the Popular Mechanics article about debunking 9/11 myths. The article has been divided into six sections, each of which will be posted as a top level comment.
[In other words, here's Conspiratard me immediately carrying water for and doing the grunt work of the Curer-tards who were somehow unable to copy and paste the content into a FB discussion, content that they claim could be read by them without paywall blurring (as was my case).]
Under each top-level comment (section), I will make one or more reply comments as warranted for my learned analysis and my level of conspiratardism on that particular section.
Under each of my reply comments -- in particular and heaven forebid if my Conspiratardism has an error! -- is where the wisdom, beauty, and goodness of the curer-tard cure will set my ass straight on the matter. And if they don't, if they don't even try [which is what I'm betting], I will get to call them "sealions"!!!
Everyone participating here is allegedly a real "persona", meaning 100% Batman from a Bruce Wayne, and 0% Bruce spoofing sidekick Robin to engage in the same discussions. [Real Dick Grayson's playing sidekick Robin is another matter.]
As real personas, we are open to ideas and also to their weaknesses, and engage in discussion in the true sense of "convince me of your point, or let me convince you of mine, and let the better and more truthful point win in bringing us to the same page of understanding."
Real personas can change their mind in the face of new evidence and analysis. The issue with spoofed sidekicks is that they are a deliberate compartmentalization of a psyche with purposeful (agenda-established) hard boundaries in beliefs, expressions, mannerisms that are programmed not to change; they can never be convinced of anything by design and conception. They reduce Bruce's Batman from 100% to 70% or less so that 30% can be split between side-kicks Robin, Alfred, and Batgirl. [If spoofed sidekicks could change, over time they'd all morph from sidekick Robin into an exact psyche clone of Batman or even Bruce. Hence, they don't change, can't be changed, and are no fun.]
As for the agent-bots? Again with the limitations and comparmentalizations that make them less than genuine, but the ease with which they will crank another spin on the exact same carousel, the ease with which they're comments are only two or three lines, barely enough for a "see more..." content break and almost repetitive as if a single data base entry re-used...
Okay, I concede that texting from a smart phone while on the toilet does not lend itself to long answers. Instead of 1-thumb comments, get on a computer and give me 10-fingers from an actual keyboard!
... But when the answers are shallow, generic, probably with ad homimem, and definitely without meaningful reference to the discussion, without ability to follow links, without ability to bring back ideas (much less quotations) from links... well... Latter-day lurker-readers will know what to make of ~that~.
Admin Ax Eye Om has already laid down the law in one of his postings not that long ago, paraphrased "don't make claims that you can't support and don't defend."
//
-----------------------
Secion 1/6 of PM's "Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report - The World Trade Center"
All quotations are from PM.
++++ begin quote
keywords: Military, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report - The World Trade Center
Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
By Popular Mechanics Editors
Published: Sep 9, 2022
++++ end quote
The authors do not identify themselves individually, because they take neither credit, nor responsibility, nor blame for this disinformation effort. Editors are just employees for a time, easily changed.
++++ begin quote
September 2022: For the past 21 years, conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States have swept the nation. The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City, for instance, was an inside job, according to "truthers" who have propagated the claim for two decades.
++++ end quote
Omission is a key tool for disinformation vehicles. PM admits that the truthers have propagated a claim, but PM omit the fact that truthers also defended the claim, and brought forth many pieces of evidence and coincidences that support the claim.
Up front, this PM article is establishing straw-man arguments -- by not representing the claim fairly or completely -- that they can more easily debunk.
++++ begin quote
It was in this climate that Popular Mechanics first took on the task of debunking 9/11 myths. Our first report appeared as the cover story for the March 2005 issue. The reporting grew into a 2006 book with a forward by Sen. John McCain, which was updated in 2011.
++++ end quote
Oooo, how special?!! A forward by Sen. Johm McCain! Wow!
David Ray Griffin published in 2007 a revised version of his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory". His reference book has over 100 pages that -- section by section -- address the fallacies in the March 2005 PM cover story and its 2006 book.
https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
In rational discussion, entity 1 makes statement A; entity 2 in response to A makes statement B; entity 1 in response to B makes statement C; and so on back and forth, with the discussion growing on and building upon the back and forth.
If the PM article and book from 2005 and 2006 is statement A, Dr. Griffin responded to A point-by-point with his book B in 2007. Between 2007 and 2022, PM has yet to respond to B and Griffin's criticism of A's errors. The 2022 effort does not address B, nor does it fix identified errors from A; PM effectively doubles down on A.
++++ begin quote
Below, you'll find a lightly-edited version of the section on the World Trade Center.
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
$125 at Amazon
++++ end quote
Based on the price, this is only sold to gullible boot-lickers, if at all. It certainly isn't priced for the masses.
++++ begin quote
Twenty years later, 9/11 conspiracy theories linger on. In the years following the report of this publication, truthers would launch of variety of attacks on Popular Mechanics, accusing the magazine of being a tool of the federal government and drawing tinfoil-hat diagrams to tie Popular Mechanics to the Bush Administration and the supposed big conspiracy. If all this nonsense accomplished anything, it was to presage our current era of "alternative facts" and attacking the messenger whenever the message clashes with one's predetermined beliefs.
++++ end quote
Defending criticism of your work and errors in your work with "tinfoil-hat" labels is an excellent example of hypnotic suggestion. It certainly isn't rational discourse, and already limits the perceived objectivity of the PM editors.
At any rate, this is a great example of PM trying to play the victim card, when the true victims were those who accepted PM's OCT narrative unquestioned and unchallenged. What authority did PM have anyway when it authored its story? And why didn't the government assign one of its agencies to take on this task?
// end Section 1/6
-----------------------
Secion 2/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
++++ begin quote
The collapse of both World Trade Center (WTC) towers"”and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later"”initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes.
++++ end quote
++++ begin quote
However, that explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
++++ end quote
++++ begin quote
Widespread Damage
world trade center attacked by terrorists
The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses September 11, 2001 in New York City.
Thomas Nilsson//Getty Images
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center website (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)"”a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce"”released another report in spring 2005. NIST shared its initial findings with Popular Mechanics at the time, and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel"”and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
âž¡ï¸ Read This Next
hyatt walkway collapseThe Deadliest Accidental Collapse in U.S. History
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
++++ end quote
// end Section 2/6
-----------------------
Secion 3/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
++++ begin quote
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the website AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"”and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 [degrees Fahrenheit]," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800 [degrees] it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that Popular Mechanics consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells Popular Mechanics. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Puffs of Dust
++++ end quote
// end Section 3/6
-----------------------
Secion 4/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
++++ begin quote
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air"”along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse"”was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells Popular Mechanics. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Myths About the 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Debunked
Debunking Myths About United Flight 93
Debunking 9/11 Myths: About the Airplanes
John McCain: The 9/11 Conspiracy Myths and the Truth Under Attack
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells Popular Mechanics. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Seismic Spikes
++++ end quote
// end Section 4/6
-----------------------
Secion 5/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
++++ begin quote
CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the website WhatReallyHappened.com. A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a website run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
blue, text, white, line, font, colorfulness, azure, parallel, slope, electric blue,
Screenshot/PM
Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disagree with the claim.
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells Popular Mechanics. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear"”misleadingly"”as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves"”blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower"”start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
WTC 7 Collapse
++++ end quote
// end Section 5/6
-----------------------
Secion 6/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
++++ begin quote
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
pollution, smoke, vehicle, explosion, world,
Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management
WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse.
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells Popular Mechanics. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom"”approximately 10 stories"”about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 square feet of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
🤯 More Mind-Blowing Conspiracy Theories
Astrophysicist Addresses Possibility of UFO SightingWhy You Believe In Conspiracy Theories
nasa captured this image during the sts 88 space shuttle mission while 246 miles above the coast of namibia and looking northThe Truth About the Black Knight Satellite
best conspiracy theory podcastsThe 13 Best Conspiracy Theory Podcasts
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to seven hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors"”along with the building's unusual construction"”were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
++++ end quote
// end Section 6/6
No comments:
Post a Comment