This article re-publishes Facebook exchanges from people associated with Mr. Craig McKee through his social media presence and blog.
Expand All Parts / Hide All Parts
Expand All Sections / Hide All Sections
Part 1: Adam Syed on Adam Ruff
x2 Adam Syed : Adam Ruff Comment to unfriend now
2020-03-29
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10222506661154940
Adam Syed, screenshot of Adam Ruff comment.
"Oh give me a break Jesus Christ Adam socialism is a disaster and as anti American Constitution as a system can possibly get. Individual liberty is the opposite of socialism. Anyway we are way past the time for arguing about which NWO puppet to vote for now. Martial law in many states is being rolled out to save us all from what? The flue. Over the flue we are going to destroy the entire world economy and plunge the world into chaos and desperate poverty and you are trying to promote fucking Bernie Sanders? What the hell is wrong with your brain man? Just unfriend me now."
Bye!
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : a blow-hard, poor researcher, and misinformed
2020-03-29
Dear Mr. Adam Syed, I have my own experiences with Mr. Adam Ruff that led me to conclude he is nothing but a blow-hard, poor researcher, and misinformed.
His comment "individual liberty is the opposite of socialism" is just so wrong.
Starters: Nobody is talking about socialism, but democratic socialism.
Likewise, it is wrong to equate "individual liberty" with capitalism, and if you've ever worked for an employer, you'd know there's no "individual liberty" there except what the executives get away with.
What made discussions with Mr. Ruff particularly fruitless were his bragging about not reading my comments, much less the sources that substantiated them.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
Mr. Ruff is a proud high school graduate who had a failing business that sold "rare earth" to people on line. His business model was to travel to various national parks (or Area 51, etc.), scoop up some dirt, put it in small fancy bottles at home, and sell these souvenirs online. Wow. He had other great stories he shared.
Back in the day of Truth and Shadows, I suspect that Mr. Ruff and Mr. HybridRogue1 (aka Willy Whitten) were somehow related as sockpuppets. Mr. Rogue may have been AWright, arguing from both sides of the net with himself.
Needless to say, Mr. Ruff won't FB friend me.
//
x6 Robert Olinger : a 'flu' that has a 2% chance of killing you
2020-03-29
So this guy does not understand political science, science, math, or public health...He thinks he understands the economy, but has yet to ask the question "who is going to participate in an economy where going outside regularly will guarantee you get a 'flu' that has a 2% chance of killing you, plus if anything else happens where you need to see a doctor...they are all busy with the 'flu'?" Hint--people will self-quarantine.
x8 Adam Syed : proud high school (barely) graduate
2020-03-29
Not only does he not understand those things, he is, as Maxwell Bridges said, a "proud high school graduate," and to be honest, even his high school education does not seem to be that strong. Anytime an opportunity exists to get a word wrong, such as their vs there, respectful vs respective, capital vs capitol, etc, he gets it wrong each and every single time.
But, those climate scientists are engaged in a left wing propaganda program with their scientific, or as Ruff would say, "scientific," papers. And he, in all his wisdom, can see through all this propaganda because he has the lucidity to recognize that the sun and only the sun causes climate change.
x10 Maxwell C. Bridges : hypocrisy against his own grand statements about how real / sincere truthers should behave
2020-03-29
Dear Mr. Adam Syed, the error that he (and Mr. Rogue) would constantly get wrong was accusing my online comments of being slander! I kept telling him: "libel is written, and slander is verbal, therefore even if what I wrote was defamation [it wasn't defamation because it could be substantiated], it could never be slander."
Also, I pointed out several times that sophomore English writing class (high school) cautioned us against using "all/none" over-generalizations, because it only took one exception to defeat the entire argument.
What pissed me off the most about Mr. Ruff was his hypocrisy. He'd come up with these grand statements about how real / sincere truthers should behave (e.g., open to both sides, ability to read alleged substantiation from both sides, open to a back-and-forth, responding to criticism). Then I would quote Mr. Ruff back to himself and prove him a glaring hypocrite and "not debating in good faith."
He boasted of having the best debunking of Dr. Wood (and nuclear means), and I put his feet to the fire and made him prove it... And he didn't attempt it.
To me, Mr. Ruff's bad behavior went beyond ego, because rational people would at least be able to admit that (a) because they hadn't or weren't willing to research it, they weren't well informed or (b) the abundance of arguments, which they couldn't refute, at least put them back on the fence on some subject.
No! It was the "stiltedness" with which they could not admit even "human failing" in understanding a given topic. It screamed "(agency) agenda driven."
In one of his rules rants about disinformation discovery and then discarding all from that source, I made an amendment. Discovery of disinformation from a given source does not immediately discredit all that came from that source, but it does necessitate a review of old shit that came from that source and a new evaluation on each items' validity promoted by that source.
//
x12 Adam Syed : pseudoscience were exhibited in the US government's investigation
All six characteristics of pseudoscience were exhibited in the US government's investigation into what happened on September 11th, 2001. #science
https://digwithin.net/2015/02/15/science-died-wtc/
x14 Maxwell C. Bridges : Facebook, an arm of the NDAA propaganda machi
2020-08-31
Hate to have to say it, but AE9/11 Truth continued this anti-science trend to keep the 9/11 Truth Movement at limited hangouts. I've got lots of details available upon request, but the starting point is that they accepted unquestioned and unchallenged the "official" reports of others that had issues ranging from scope limits to shoddy sampling [e.g., tritium report]. ... One of their more recent un-scientific moves (FAQ#13/#15) was to lamely attempt to debunk "all forms of 9/11 nuclear device" by framing the destruction as "nuclear blasts." Fail.
When I ride my lonely "Nookiedoo" hobby-horse into discussions (the name was coined in battle by a HybridRogue sockpuppet in Truth and Shadows), three types of participants emerge.
(1) The sincere who had never seen the evidence compiled and built into a different theory stack with fewer gaps.
(2) The science challenged NT yeomen suffering from cognitive dissonance and failing to realize that even their beloved AE9/11Truth group can be infiltrated and controlled; owing to the dissonance, it literally pains their well-meaning brains to acknowledge the glaring weaknesses of NT in account for all of the evidence, particularly the anomalous kind that AE9/11Truth completely ignored.
(3) This being Facebook and an arm of the NDAA propaganda machine, the vast majority of discussion opponents are agent-bots with an agenda, and destroying attempts at unfolding truth is key to controlling the message. They're the ones immediately spamming the thread with memes and belittling one-liners probably served up from databases.
//
x16 Adam Syed : AE911TRUTH say NT was used in combination
2020-08-31
I am quite sure that AE911TRUTH does NOT say that only nanothermite was involved. They say that it was used in combination with more conventional explosives. Whether you are correct or not in your theory that mini nukes were involved, it is important here for readers to understand that all of us agree that the official story is bogus. Namely, the story that the damage from the aircraft impacts as well as the ensuing fires were what collapsed the buildings, and that falling debris from those buildings made Building 7 catch on fire and cause it to collapse. (Much of your comment, with its acronyms and abbreviations, will be Greek to 99/100 of my readers.)
x18 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE911Truth's deceit was not following science
2020-08-31
Dear Mr. Adam Syed,
Your first sentence is a great example of another fraud committed by AE911Truth. Namely, if they say NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction and other things were used, then their scientific deceit is stopping analysis there without pin-pointing what else was used.
Moreover, NT in any combination with more conventional explosives was debunked by Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST with a straight face and no lying ticks... He knew what was really used and it wasn't NT/conventional-explosives, because such would have been absolutely deafening to survivors within 1/4-1/2 of a mile; hearing loss was not one of the medical conditions of the survivors. Plus, NT with or without conventional explosives does not go the distance in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without implying obscenely massive quantities ~UNSPENT~ from their original pulverizing purpose. That dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
So AE911Truth's deceit was not following science and truth to where it really led.
The fingerprints of nuclear involvement leak out of all reports, like the USGS analysis of the dust. It shows in its data tables Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities (indicating fission), while of course they never plain-text explain why these would be measured. Those same data tables don't show nanothermite or things conventional explosives. And let's not forget the scope-limited tritium report and how it re-defined what trace levels were.
For those unaware, the "squibs" preceding the destruction wave were not conventional ones, because otherwise, they would have have been more symmetric and common. No, the squibs were the conventional charge used to kick-start the fission-trigger phase of the FGNW, neither designed for destruction. The fission-trigger generates the heat for fusion. Fusion releases its highly energetic neutrons in a targeting cone generally aimed upwards. Four FGNW per detonation level aimed upwards to miss the inner core; detonation levels every 10-20 floors. Look at how the top-20 floors accordion in on themselves at 65% gravitational acceleration and a cloud of dust.
Tritium is the building block of all fourth generation nuclear weapons, and boy are their stories about the government's song and dance to keep 15-year half-life tritium available in its stores for weapons. ("Tritium on Ice" goes into the gory political details.)
Here is the major omission from the works of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11. But I took his work and I have.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
WHY DOES DESTRUCTION MECHANISMS MATTER?
Imagine a domestic stabbing in a household kitchen. Version A. Suspect was battered by victim; fearing for her life, she reached for her Cutco serated knife from its wood block on the counter, and defended herself. Version B. Suspect had a hobby of forging knives in a little kiln in the garage, machining the blade, and spending countless hours sharpening into a fine blade. The victim looked like he had been run through a large sewing machine, too many stab wounds to count. MEANS DO MATTER!
//
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
ARXIV.ORG
x20 Adam Syed : stretching to say that AE is engaging in fraud
2020-08-31
Maxwell Bridges
I really think that it is stretching to say that AE is engaging in fraud. You also use the word "deceit." That implies intentionality.
In case you lost sight of the big picture, the main goal of AE is their petition. They have succeeded in getting well over 3000 (so far) architects and engineers design a controversial petition that states that the official account of 9/11 is false. by signing this petition they have put their credibility and careers on the line. They are by far the most effective public outreach organization the movement has; for you to come into this thread and casts doubt on the credibility of the organization does not help me as far as me trying to reach a more general audience. It's one thing to bring the stuff up at the truth and shadows blog, but it really doesn't help the situation here. The average person would read this thread and be like "see, they can't even agree among themselves, what a joke they are!"
x22 Maxwell C. Bridges : gives me no pleasure to call AE out for deceit
2020-08-31
Dear Mr. Adam Syed,
I happen to be one of the 3,000 signers of their petition, and my qualifications were vetted. It gives me no pleasure to call AE out for deceit. But the theme of this discussion is "science dying at the WTC", and through AE's actions there is pretty conclusive proof that they, too, were controlling the message.
Why? If the public were to get any solid whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 in any great measure, then the figurative nuclear fall-out could still be felt today on institutions and leadership. (Combine it with Epstein and other vices, and their beloved status quo and their souls would go up in a mushroom cloud.)
Remember 9/11 blogger? Mr. McKee was banned real quick, but I was never even granted admission to talk this subject. And it was there that Dr. Jones proclaimed: "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT". Yet, no research was spent looking for that something else, on purpose. Science dying at the WTC.
Do you recall how Mr. HybridRogue1 and Mr. Adam Ruff would go bat-shit crazy at even the slightest off-hand one-off comments about "Neu Nookiedoo"? Par for the course with the NDAA propaganda aimed at us and the Cass Sunstein cognitive infiltration of online forums.
I have zero problems being proven wrong. But ain't nobody done that. Done everything but. Good thing I save my work so I can offer up example after example of people arguing deceitfully.
9/11 Truthers like to joke about the cognitive dissonance in the general population who have never questioned the OCT. Well, 9/11 Truthers believing in nanothermite and unwilling to see its glaring weaknesses in being able to describe all of the evidence suffer from probably even greater cognitive dissonance, because maybe they spent years already championing it, and what a loss for their efforts, eh?
Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of 9/11 Truth who showed us how to debunk the debunkers, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored." AE9/11Truth violated this principle handily.
//
x24 Adam Syed : intra-movement stuff best discussed behind closed doors
2020-08-31
My view: this is intra-movement stuff that is best discussed behind closed doors (9/11 specific sites). It does not help the cause of 9/11 truth to air all this laundry in front of an audience of general readers. Of my roughly 1,000 friends on here, probably at least 800 to 850 of them believe the official story, and these kinds of threads do not help get through to them.
x26 Adam Syed : waking up the public is not a "hobby horse"
2020-08-31
You have referred to your specific theory as your "hobby horse."
That's fine, but waking up the public to the fact that the official story is false is not a "hobby horse" for me. It is a call of duty, and one that has been met with a lot of ridicule and ostracization.
x28 Maxwell C. Bridges : taking ownership of the ridicule
2020-08-31
Dear Mr. Adam Syed,
I've been sincere, respectful, articulate, ~and~ ON-TOPIC, and kept this to a thread that readers have to bore into to follow. Certainly, I can see your point in the light of how much disinformation was created and fed into the 9/11 discussions, from NPT at the WTC to holograms to deep underground nukes to DEW beams from space to pancakes to crush-down...
I call myself a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth. When 9/11 Truth doesn't follow truth where it needs to go, ... well, what then? It is my "call of duty, and one that has been met with a lot of ridicule and ostracization."
I just don't mind using Jujitzu and taking ownership of the ridicule aimed at me and turning it into my armor (God told me to "embrace it", el-oh-el). "Neu nookiedoo hobby-horse" wasn't my coinage. [Stands for "neutron nuclear-DEW" and my niche area I observed being poorly and under-served in the 9/11 truth movement. I have personally debunked the nukers-deep-underground and the Woodsian DEWers, and AE's lame attempt to debunk nuclear involvement, by malframing and scope limiting.]
Mr. Craig McKee also talks about not caring about "what" or "how", but "that" controlled demolition happened and getting public awareness of this is job number 1.
The disconnect here is that "nuclear 9/11" could very well be that klaxon call to get that public awareness, to fire up the people: "Those same damn Zionists and pedophiles in places of power in our government deployed nuclear devices against us, its citizens, on 9/11, and those not actively involved jumped on the bandwagon to cover it up and march us into Israeli wars."
This is the missing piece and the catalyst for you that you don't see, and is reason enough even cherished 9/11 Truth groups -- like the BLM/antifa protests -- were infiltrated and controlled. Not an exception for the military strategies of controlling the public discourse. Why else would a professor of public myths be called to be the executive of the 9/11 Commission Report?
I may be riding a one-trick pony, but that don't make it wrong. The only thing wrong... you still aren't convinced and there is doubt you've even reviewed my works. (The agent-bot detractors regularly get their integrity dinged for this failing of not reviewing what substantiates the FGNW premise.)
I'm saying, the 9/11 FGNW can help you in your quest, if you'd get over your cognitive dissonance and let it.
//
Part 2: MCB Mullings on Opus
x30 Maxwell C. Bridges : my 9/11 opus, the pinnacle of my life's work?
2021-02-17
Dear Mr. McKee, Soliciting your opinion at the end.
Backstory: My abject procrastination on finishing my 9/11 Opus -- the pinnacle of my life's work (outside of family and profession) -- has been lifted. I'm now reasoning how the pieces should be fit together and the scope. Motivation has come from several directions, not the least of which is that this is the 20th anniversary year of 9/11.
Alas, that alone is going to make it hard for my humble efforts to get noticed amidst what will be surely a parade of 9/11 Truth and Propaganda pieces.
On top of the 20th anniversary, this year is the 40th anniversary of the class of 1981, where I plan to attend the celebrations of two different high schools with whom I was associated growing up. [Coincidence that they happen within a week of each other including the 9/11 weekend?]
A truism of good books, theatre, movies, and music, is that if you remain true to yourself -- the characters, the culture, and the environment -- and if you aim at the audience from that environment, the work and its truth naturally resonate to audiences well outside that environment. [I'll not bore you with a list of Netflix films or music from other cultures and languages that bear this out.]
My plan for the 40th high school reunions was simply to have business cards for my online persona with URLs to my work. If an opportunity arose in the re-acquaintance rituals to tell of my conspiracy theory hobbies, I could keep the conversation short and painless, hand them my "conspiracy" card, and have my larger body of work speak (crazy) for itself.
Yet, the gears in my head were turning. My website and blog efforts have always had a future audience in mind: my unborn and unknown descendants. "See! Your great grandpappy was woke on things, and maybe was only crazy in his persistence."
The 40th reunion, however, presents an opportunity to expand the target audience for my 9/11 opus to my former classmates. The new underlying goal of the writing would be to convince those classmates to question official accounts. IF I GOT REALLY PERSONAL in my evolution into a conspiracy theorist, I believe I'd hold the interests of my descendants and these curious classmates. Moreover, its sincerity and truth could raise the work to attract a wider audience and make it stand out amidst all of the other 20th anniversary 9/11 tripe.
Your thoughts on this new approach for my 9/11 opus, the pinnacle of my life's work?
Is going personal a worthy strategy? Would it set it apart?
I was going to make a narrative on my thinking over time, how I got involved, what disinformation duped me and how I overcame it, etc. Embedded in between with "expand/collapse" hooks, I'd supply my substantiating references, full-text if possible, to make the opus a real rabbit-hole with multiple forks to skim and explore. Other than the narrative portion, the intent isn't to get the audience to read from A-Z through all substantiating forks of the rabbit-hole. The intent is to make content available as a reference, and to prove "hey, I'm not making this up! Here are the receipts!"
All the best,
// mcb
Part 3: Controll Opposition Alex Jones
x32 Matt Landmann : is Alex Jones controlled opposition? How about Joe Rogan?
2022-06-16
Matt Landmann,
June 16, 2021 [1 Year ago] is Alex Jones controlled opposition? How about Joe Rogan? Asking for a friend.
x34 Angi Madama Huff : Alex Jones is not
2022-06-16
Alex Jones is not . He has paid a heavy price
x36 Maxwell C. Bridges : everything in this day and age is or has some measure of disinformation
2022-06-16
Dear Ms. Angi Madama Huff, Everybody who aspires to be a "clearing house of conspiracy theories" will always have some degree of disinformation along for the ride, in part because it is easy to get duped by, but mostly because the goal is to get consumer eyeballs/ears to the commercials which pay the bills. The content itself? In walking the talk about being open-minded, the interviewer doesn't have to be the mindset of the conspiracy theory (hiding the disinformation), possibly provided and defended by an interviewee; and bonus if the interviewer manages to debunk it. Any conspiracy theory slipped in to the programming appeals to the viewing audiences and fills that particular news cycle. That is business.
Alex Jones, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Wood (and her biggest follower, Andrew Johnson), and many others have fallen into this trap. To give themselves more to peddle and be a reason for visitors to come, sometimes their product catalog included things that they probably didn't fully believe, but also didn't want to be the one gate-keeping on it in case it really was important.
More to the point, everything it seems in this day and age (and underscored by the Republicans even before Trump and the Democrats) is or has some measure of disinformation.
Even AE9/11Truth -- so near and dear my heart -- is controlled opposition [details upon request] for the deliberate suppression of some fundamental 9/11 Truths.
Controlled opposition can promote disinformation even in an individual assumption or various barred rabbit-hole branches near the base of the conspiracy theory. For instance, a flaw in the vaccine debate on both sides is the assumption on the effectiveness of modern medicine even before the science on vaccines is discussed (and proved wanting.) Another instance, AE9/11Truth assumes that 9/11 had no nuclear components, so therefore did a shitty job of trying to debunk nuclear involvement by limiting their scope from the get-go to "nuclear blasts" and no mention of neutron bombs of old, let alone their offspring fourth generation nuclear weapons.
So, yes, Alex Jones and Joe Rogan will both have had their moments when they were used.
//
Part 4: Eric Sandstrom
x38 Eric Sandstrom : the evil force that did 9/11 is the same evil force that brought the 9/11 truth movement
2022-07-
David Chandler alive and well when it comes to his fraudulent stand at the Pentagon. Even though this link https://truthandshadows.com/.../coste-chandler-fraud.../ rightly comes against David and tells the truth about David Chandler and Wayne Coste's fraudulent work, don't be mistaken Craig McKee/"truth and shadows" is all part of the sham, purposed confusion/disunity under the guise of 9/11 truth. "¢published just now:
 "¢ https://youtu.be/zBRPFFMei1c
PS
 With all my 9/11 post lately the underlying theme is that I'm believing the same evil force that did 9/11 is the same evil force that brought the 9/11 truth movement, with its purposed disunity & confusion re Shanksville and the Pentagon as if we can't see clearly that no plane hit either location. There is complicity under the guise of 9/11 truth. I believe Richard Gage and many others could speak about this but do not. As *Claudio Marty (*I am the face of truth) said: (who by the way is also complicit) "the agent (SHILL) is right in front of us"
x40 Maxwell C. Bridges : if Mr. Chandler misrepresents one aspect of 9/11, then he might be misrepresenting others
2022-07-
Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, I'm up to speed on the issues with the Pentagon, although it isn't my hobby-horse. Various translations of a Biblical New Testament were "Faithful in the small; faithful in the large" and "unfaithful in the small; unfaithful in the large."
Meaning if Mr. Chandler misrepresents one aspect of 9/11, then he might be misrepresenting others.
Turns out, FGNW is my hobby-horse that I sincerely solicited assistance from high school physics teacher (Mr. Chandler) to vet or debunk. In fact, when I was briefly in the Woodsian DEW camp, I purchased and had sent to Mr. Chandler (with his permission) his own copy of Dr. Judy Wood's book so that we could be on the same literal page when debunking it (or vetting it).
[Spoiler: On my own, I proved Dr. Wood's book disinformation. She drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, can't power her theories with anything real world (that wasn't nuclear), allowed it to be framed as "beams from space", and did a shitty job of nuclear research. Oh, but the pictorial evidence she collects, precious nuggets of truth, remain.]
Mr. Chandler declined to provide any assistance, although he's quick to call it disinformation. When my theories evolved to FGNW, Mr. Chandler avoids the discussion, claiming he doesn't have the physics background to participate even though he does; he had the requisite classes to get his degree and can easily refresh his knowledge.
The point is, from a direction different than the Pentagon plane (namely FGNW at the WTC), Mr. Chandler proved himself deceitful.
As for Mr. Wayne Coste, he ultimately debunks himself, because he won't defend the deliberate weaknesses in his work (or the FAQ's he relies on), because those weaknesses -- the scope limits and stilt -- were deliberate.
If you're morbidly curious, my discussion with Mr. Wayne Coste originally on FB but re-purposed at this location is worth scanning. It was like pulling teeth just to get an appropriate FB forum to have the discussion, such a weasel clown he was.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
[Spoiler: "Nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." A conclusion from the FAQ that I am forced to agree with. Because the "nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons destroyed the WTC." Ask yourself what became of that dastardly nuclear weapon from the 1970's that the fear-mongered us with called "the neutron bomb"? Hint: FGNW.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
What I learned is that full-fledged government disinfo groups (say, "Woodsian DEWers", "NPT @ WTC", "Deep underground Nukers", "hollow towers and CGI victims", "real Pentagon plane", and even "nanothermite") will not go "balls out" debunking mode on any of the other disinfo theories. They don't ever legitimately debunk a premise from their sister disinfo group, because they report to the same masters and are ordered off before any real damage is measured out. Keeping (and not killing off) disinfo premises maintains the poison in the well and the distraction and division of the 9/11 truth movement.
However, I'm a sincere seeker of truth. I admit to being duped by the above mentioned disinfo premises until further research revealed them to be implausible and deceit, but with rescuable nuggets of truth. New evidence and analysis can and does get me to change my mind. Not so for those championing disinformation.
//
Part 5: The Lobbying of Craig McKee
x42 Maxwell C. Bridges : proclamation of re-activation as a 9/11 truther
2023-07-22
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Seeing your proclamation of re-activation as a 9/11 truther is indeed most exciting to me. Your adherence to truth over the years in this subject matter has proven you a spiritual and moral LEADER. I am so proud of you! (And the TruthAndShadows reboot.)
Now that you are a leader in the 9/11 truth movement, it is now [pun intended] high time that you and I have the famous "Jefferson/Franklin" style rational discussion on 9/11 nuclear involvement.
You would be the hero of the 9/11 Truth Movement if you took it seriously, and followed the white rabbit of Truth where it leads you. Debunk it (or vet it). Win-win, either way.
AE9/11Truth was not able to debunk 9/11 nuclear involvement, nor could Mr. Adam Ruff, Mr. Adam Syed, Mr. Wayne Coste, Mr. David Chandler, etc.
I'm not married to the FGNW premise and have proven that convincing evidence and analysis does get me to change my opinions [and apologies again for my September Clues and Dr. Judy Wood phases of 9/11 evolution]. So when you identify errors or weaknesses in my work, it will be for everybody's benefit including my own, because I don't like being the sole duped useful idiot on the matter and would be grateful to be corrected and led back into the fold of "9/11 truth consensus beliefs."
THAT DISCUSSION won't happen here in this thread under this posting, no worries Mr. McKee, because you're going to establish where that valuable discussion is to transpire so that all the truthers of the world can benefit from the unfolding of truth that our exchanges will bring.
What will happen here is a small discussion about, say, your engagement eagerness, the boundaries of the discussion. [Being a single entity, multi-front engagements don't favor me. You anchor a home for the discussion, there need not be any bleed-out of nuclear premises (by me at least) into your many other valuable discussions and thread.]
We are not spiritual enemies and are on the same figurative 9/11 truth page in many areas. We are not even debate opponents, because this (nuclear considerations) is an area that you felt was outside your field of expertise and didn't want to research on your own (even seeded with my research to leap-frog you ahead).
Here is why YOU in particular need to rationally explore this (in dialog with me): the Venn diagram intersection of your 9/11 Pentagon hobby-horse and my 9/11 FGNW hobby-horse is the same cabal of 9/11-gatekeepers.
P.S. Mr. Adam Ruff and Mr. Adam Syed both have me blocked on Facebook. Thus, they won't see this comment or any that I make, and could miss 50% of the conversation. Given that you value their opinions and contributions, you could make them aware. I'll accept their FB friend requests. However, Mr. Ruff will need to be a changed and objective man from who he was in past exchanges, because I have the receipts from those past exchanges where he was [pun intended] highly disingenuous in his debating style and tactics (that includes "running out the clock").
Mr. Syed, being a professional musician, felt, like you Mr. McKee, "out-of-his-league" in discussing things nuclear. Inform him and yourself, that it is not. And that all the public needs to know to prove evidence of 9/11 nuclear involvement has been before our eyes, on our cameras, in our reports this whole time... for musicians and journalists to readily comprehend and see.
Mr. McKee, this is ~OUR~ time to shine and bring truth to the masses. This is where our Venn diagrams overlap again. This is me and you, long-time internet friend, having a deep and enlightening conversation with references and substantiation, and questions, and reasoning.
//
x44 Craig McKee : if I were to have sufficient knowledge to discuss
2023-07-22
Maxwell Bridges It might well be a positive thing if I were to have sufficient knowledge to discuss, or even debate, this subject. There are a number of areas of 9\11 research that I could stand to learn more about. But I have to be selective about where I put my time, especially the significant amount of time this would take. But it's not just the time. I think in terms of strategy as well as priorities - along with wanting the know the truth about everything.
With respect to the contention that there was a nuclear component to the destruction of the towers, I think first about whether my devoting time to investigating the issue would advance the cause. Or would I have more of an impact focusing on things I've already become a bit more expert in. I think about the agents, trolls, and infiltrators and their efforts to chip away the body of 9/11 evidence the movement has assembled. I see value in exposing their deception. I see value in diving deeper into the Pentagon and Shanksville.
I think we've proved that the towers were demolished with some kind of explosives. Truthers are pretty united on this. I don't see how devoting a major amount of time to debating the type of explosives that were used is worth the time it would take. Not for me, anyway. If I've been at all effective in this fight, it has been because I have focused on areas where I think I can do the most good. And my plan is to continue with this approach. Having said all that, I try never to discourage anyone from genuinely pursuing the truth about any subject.
x46 Maxwell C. Bridges : intolerant of learning something new
2023-07-22
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, when you use words like "explosives" instead of more inclusive phrases like "in a planned and controlled manner," you already frame the debate and stake your position (and it can be proven "not the primary mechanism of destruction.")
No one is asking you to be a master in the area of nuclear means, but you can certainly become proficient in the details and the body of evidence that leaves the barnyard door completely open for this premise to be valid.
Because you seem to be first weighing the relative impact of "allowing nuclear discussions" on your watch, on your turf, with your paying attention, with your moderation, and you think going into "demolition" details might be counter productive.
Here's an analogy for your position.
"A person is murdered. You think it is sufficient to know they are dead. Someone tells you DNA science can help narrow down both the cause and the suspects, but because you don't know DNA science and aren't willing to be taught, it might not be worth your time to even consider and allow others to discuss DNA relevance, for it might take you out of your comfort zone off of your WELL WORN AND BEATEN DOWN PATH."
You're being such a gate keeper, and intolerant of learning something new.
As long as we are philosophically weighting merits of where intellectual effort should be spent, assume for the brief span of the next few paragraphs that 9/11 really did have nuclear components... chapter and verse, anomaly after anomaly, the nuclear explanation connects more dots, answers more questions, is a comprehensive solution.
Wouldn't its "ah-ha revelation" change how you approach 9/11, and make you re-evaluate your understanding, not just of the events themselves but the coordinated cover-up all these decades? It would foist your accusing fingers directly into the face of AE9/11Truth, with whom you collaborated, when you suddenly recognize their glaring omissions.
Remember the predictive programming before 9/11, how they were pumping us full of patriotic movies, like "Pearl Harbor". There is a reason the "Oppenheimer" is out now, and there is real danger in the world of nukes being thrown about today.
However, it is best if we understand what those modern day nuclear devices look like, particularly when they get deployed in unique and tactical ways (and not always as payload to a cruise missile).
Under the given assumption expressed above, wouldn't the validity of the nuclear premise -- when presented afresh to the 9/11 community -- raise public consciousness and awareness and activism, your desire? "We were nuked with our own weapons on our turf by our own teams (and Israel), and were then told straight up lies and fantasies for two straight decades, spun in circles, for what was in hindsight obvious just from the energy levels required and the anomalies in the debris."
Think about it this way.
If you put in a good faith effort to understand the scope of the evidence and the factors hinting nuclear methods that "explosives" can't easily explain, YOU WOULD BE DOING A HUGE FAVOR TO THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT regardless of whether it gets debunked or vetted in the discussion. Either outcome is a WIN for the public, because it came about [we hope] legitimately through researched, substantiated, and reasoned discussion.
Assuming still the validity of the nuclear premise, this factoid helps you on other 9/11 discussion fronts; data points that not only relate to your hobby-horse areas but narrow the suspect list. On the cover-up side, your Pentagon cabal was also active first in the NT limited hang-out.
And the trendline drawn from these nuclear 9/11 data points pierces quite well data points from Covid, and how to manipulate the public. Hence why it remains relevant.
I think you vastly underestimate the power of (9/11 nuclear) truth and how it can still have today (figurative) nuclear fallout on government institutions and leaders.
And the beauty of criminal ex-President Trump is that his trials prove Presidents aren't above the law, and sets the precedence for other past-Presidents being called out to answer for their war crimes.
Final argument: Here's the song my FGNW hobby-horse wants you to hear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0
//
x48 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Coste ignored these 14 top-level comments containing objections to his work from a technical point of view
2023-09-06
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Indeed on the 9/11 nuclear front, Mr. Wayne Coste proved beyond a shadow of a doubt his shilly-ness. I managed to come into a discussion with him under a group/posting/thread about "no planes at WTC" (NPT@WTC), where he and I were on the same side, namely that NPT was blatant disinformation in part because its champions could never acknowledge when one or more of their pillars of understanding was knocked out from underneath them.
Be that as it may, while I had his attention (and knowing his shilly-ness about the Pentagon), I tried to engage him in a discussion about his alleged debunking of 9/11 nuclear means. The group/posting/thread where we met wasn't appropriate for this discussion that he was amiable to, but I couldn't get him to confirm a FB friend request or to submit a FB friend request to me to improve the FB communications so that we could discuss the matter on his or my FB wall.
He baited me: "What specifically do you find objectionable from a technical point of view."
Yet, he wouldn't even make a dedicated posting about his (and AE9/11Truth's) "no nuclear blasts" premise to the group to which we both belonged, even though the one posting it has "control" (and can remove other's comments).
So I made a posting and dissected his premise (built largely on the disinfo "no nuclear blasts" efforts from AE9/11Truth) section-by-section and even paragraph-by-paragraph in places with a diversion into AE9/11Truth's disinfo FAQ. I made the top-level posting and then individual top-level comments for each section of his work, leaving still two levels of reply-comments.
Mr. Coste ignored these 14 top-level comments containing objections to his work from a technical point of view. Not a single acknowledgement or rebuttal. But we eventually did have a conversation about properly described late-3rd generation nuclear devices, but even there he was an elusive weasel.
It was, however, one of the better discussions that I've had in my defense of 9/11 WTC nuclear components, but reflected poorly on Mr. Coste from start to finish. One of its highlights was me tearing apart the FAQ's from AE9/11Truth that debunk "nuclear blasts"; not that either of us was championing the destruction as coming from "nuclear blasts", but that "nuclear blasts" is a complete disinfo malframing of the form the energy would take.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../fgnw-discussions.html
//
x50 Craig McKee : Do something new. Learn something new. Let's you and me bring closure to this
2023-09-06
Maxwell Bridges I do not wish to have his agent-like behavior concerning the Pentagon confused by getting into his views on the nuclear WTC issue. That just muddies the waters. The Pentagon is clear: Coste wants everyone to accept more and more of the official story. He's a fraud who lies regularly. I don't need to bring the towers into this. Like the rest of the cabal, Coste uses the towers to give himself fake "credibility."
x52 Maxwell C. Bridges : Do something new. Learn something new. DEBATE ME
2023-09-06
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, What you "wish" isn't important; the truth is. The cabal's actions covering up the Pentagon and the WTC nuclear involvement are related, because they point to the same suspects and use the same cover-up team infiltrated into, say, AE9/11Truth.
What is muddying the waters today, dear Mr. McKee, is YOU.
Case in point. How long have you been promoting your Pentagon hobby-horse? Hasn't it become a little bit retread, a has-been carousel, exceptionally boring-that-you-know-every-detail, however valid it may still be? You've got a hard-sell, because the evidence YOU need -- assuming it hasn't already been destroyed -- won't be released until next century probably. So how explosive on public understanding and ACTION is any revelation you could trigger in the public about the Pentagon gonna be?
A decade later [since writing about your Pentagon hobby-horse], two decades since the event.
Do something new. Learn something new. DEBATE ME, for Eff's sake!
Looky here: My nuclear hobby-horse has its hoof-prints stamped everywhere, with evidence leaking out all over from official reports to unofficial reports to videos (of the day, of the debris pile later, of fresh kills salvage yard) all the way to the stilted and lame-ass cover-ups that included banning under the penalty of arrest cameras and geiger counters at GZ. 9/11 nuclear involvement is like a black hole that you can't see and nobody will officially acknowledge, except that its gravity pull is so heavy, agencies (EPA, NIST, FEMA, AE9/11Truth, etc.) flat-out lied to keep the lid on and through stilted-non-action prove the (nuclear) black hole's very existence.
This ^^^^ above nuclear hobby-horse -- debunked or vetted -- is required for the 9/11 TM and the world at large: an open 9/11 question in search of a definitive answer. You would be a hero to all, but particularly to me in greater esteem than I already hold you. Debunked or vetted, you'd be the hero with the platform that hosted it.
This ^^^^ above nuclear hobby-horse would figuratively be nuclear in explosive impact on public consciousness leading towards ACTION and figurative nuclear fallout on various government agencies, institutions, and officials: your stated goals (paraphrased).
You want to put me and my hobby-horse out to pasture?!! Please do, but do it LEGITIMATELY. Take it seriously one time; give it a field to run around in and let the agents, bots, and naysayers take their crackshots at it.
But you, Mr. McKee, "convince me or let me convince you." DO YOUR JOB AS A TRUTH SEEKING JOURNALIST AND FOLLOW THE WHITE RABBIT.
FTR IMHO, similar to the Reese's commercials of yore, "my FGNW hobby-horse? Muddying the waters of your Pentagon hobby-horse? Preposterous, old chap! Quite the contrary. Your Pentagon hobby-horse is muddying the waters for my FGNW hobby-horse, and sucks YOUR attention away from what could be much more important to the public."
They each have some of the same suspects, some of the same cover-up agents, and aren't mutually exclusive. Both hobby-horses can exist and be true at the same time.
Let's you and me bring closure to this. Win-win for you all the way down the line, because you were open-minded enough (if not brow-beaten by me enough) to allow rational discussion on this 9/11 nuclear black hole topic.
//
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : how was NT positioned to achieve thisstunning, sudden, and symmetric dustification?
2023-09-06
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Remember this image? Because you believe the Pentagon cabal in its WTC analysis (but not its Pentagon analysis), how was NT positioned to achieve this stunning, sudden, and symmetric dustification? NT has been a theory for over 15 years, but did they ever rationally speculate how NT achieved this, where it was positioned/mounted, why it wasn't loud, how it could have maintained the duration of hotspots (unspent from this pulverizing activity)?
//
No photo description available.
x56 Maxwell C. Bridges : how were FGNW positioned to achieve thisstunning, sudden, and symmetric dustification?
2023-09-06
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, consider this image of late-3rd generation hybrid fission/fusion nuclear devices.
4 devices per detonation levels, 6-12 detonation levels. A conventional chemical based charge kick-started the fission stage. I speculate that kick-back from that kick-starter charge is what is observed on the faces of the towers 10-20 stories below the "pulverization" wave.
USGS survey of the dust shows Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample, indicating a fission process. But this fission wasn't designed for explosive energy release or for spreading its radioactive badness all about. It was designed to generate the heat required for the fusion phase.
Why was there even a tritium report, so lame and stilted as it was, with shoddy sampling and scope-limited speculation into "office furnishings"? Because tritium is the building block for all 3rd/4th gen devices.
Why did they ban cameras? Because the old (VHS) tape recording equipment gets fouled in a major way just being around radioactive things. Don't believe me? This is exactly what happened to much of the FEMA/NIST video footage of Fresh Kills.
Modern digital cameras also record radiation, but we're so used to "snow in our broadcasts" from the old broadcast television and rabbit ear antennas, we don't notice. But if you study, it is there as at the WTC in the video images.
//
An image of text that says 'Outer Wall Assemblies Inner Core Speculation of one scenario. Not drawn to scale. 9-11-2001 WTC towers demolition using Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons'
x58 Maxwell C. Bridges : recorded instances that was then real-time radiation
2023-09-06
Maxwell Bridges
At about 0:52 in the following video of the South Tower Dust Cloud, the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.
https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52
//
9/11: South Tower Dust Cloud
YOUTUBE.COM
x60 Maxwell C. Bridges : camera scintillation from radiation
2023-09-06
Maxwell Bridges
Here is an example from "Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10." Notice how the camera scintillation affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.
https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291
//
Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10
YOUTUBE.COM
x62 Maxwell C. Bridges : Captured on video real-time radiation
2023-09-06
Two digital videos that captured real-time radiation as it was happening and then later in the debris pile. There are more videos, like at Fresh Kills (where they tried to used tape video cameras that fouled almost immediately).
Open your eyes, Mr. Craig McKee, for this is the new thing (to you) that will invigorate your 9/11 reporting and provide "nuclear" power to the public revelation of badness that would bring them to a tipping point that your Pentagon hobby-horse cannot.
//
x64 Xander Arena : Mini nuke themes are a deflection tactic
2023-09-06
Craig McKee Mini nuke themes are a deflection tactic. Start honing in on something, the cabal will toss us a Red Herring. Bridges is an agent too. Sorry but nobody cares this much about fake fallout with no requisite daughter decay chains. It's obvious to me, as obvious as David Chandler's dismissive approach to Sgt Legasse and Sgt Brooks' testimony.
x66 Craig McKee : If the nukes can be proven true, then it can be done without my contribution
2023-09-06
I will definitely not be watering the Pentagon evidence down by tossing in stuff about nukes. If the latter can be proven true, then it can be done without my contribution.
x68 Maxwell C. Bridges : so willy-nilly -- all ignorant and know-nothing -- for sure is a deflection technique
2023-09-06
Dear Mr. Xander Arena, First of all, calling it "mini-nukes" so willy-nilly the way you banty it about -- all ignorant and know-nothing -- for sure is a deflection technique. Because I've done my homework and provide it as the basis for a rational discussion, maybe you should start there and at least learn what needs to be debunked (or vetted).
You wrote: "fake fallout with no requisite daughter decay chains." Liar, liar, pants on fire.
First of all, the USGS dust analysis has tables that show sample to sample in correlated quantities exactly the Uranium decay chains that you hypnotically suggest are fake.
[Interesting side story: Jeff Prager noted these correlations from the USGS data tables and published his findings. When AE9/11Truth created their disinfo FAQ to debunk "WTC destruction by nuclear blast", their analysis does not mention Prager's findings on the dust and neither do their footnotes. Instead they cherry-picked a "different usage of phrase" from one of Prager's publications, and essentially used the footnotes to defame Prager.]
Secondly, fall-out did happen, but because it was not a "mini-nuke" (e.g., fission designed for destruction via heat wave, blast wave, and EMP) but instead multiple tactical hybrid fission/fusion devices (e.g., fission exclusively to generate heat for fusion that release 80% of the nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion), the nuclear finger prints exist but differ in scale from "mini-nukes".
[Interesting side story: When the sole nuclear physicists in the 9/11 Truth Movement repudiated the use of nuclear devices (shortly before introducing the NT limited hang-out), he accepted various government reports at face value, unquestioned and unchallenged despite in cases sampling issues (small number of samples, limited locations), and stilted premises; he framed his nuclear devices as large fission devices destroying with traditional heat/blast/EMP waves and thereby being dirtier and spreading bad radioactivity further in larger quantities not observed in the reports he accepted unchallenged; he made no mention of neutron devices; he made no mention of "exotic nuclear devices" such as FGNW that Dr. Andre Gsponer had been writing about and publishing books and articles in peer-reviewed papers in the decade leading up to 9/11. >>THAT<< majorly sucky literature review by Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, et al is pretty indicative about who the agents were and what the black-hole was.]
You wrote to Mr. McKee regarding the Pentagon: "Start honing in on something, the cabal will toss us a Red Herring."
I gave reasons to Mr. McKee in a previous comment why the Pentagon is a hard-sell, because the government controls the evidence and because it really isn't a topic that energizes. But the topic of "WTC nuclear devices in use on 9/11"?!! Why, that would certainly get a more energetic public reaction [that can be used to educate about other things 9/11, like WTC-7, the Pentagon]!!!
In fact, I have it on good authority that the very same "Truther-cabal" who gives grief to Pentagon truths have done the same thing in spades to WTC nuclear components. Nuclear anything they will not discuss legitimately. Hell, they couldn't even discuss Dr. Judy Wood's research legitimately and debunk it in a valid fashion, because after the strawman beams-from-space is debunked, too much residual evidence is presented in her book that NT can't address, but FGNW in the category of DEW can.
When you write that "Bridges is an agent too", are you saying that Mr. Craig McKee is an agent, as well as you?
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm just the sole duped useful idiot on the FGNW-front because I'm a religious fanatic; fanatical about TRUTH. I'd very much love to be convinced otherwise and have LITERALLY for years been begging Mr. McKee (and others -- including Adam Ruff, David Chandler, Jon Cole, Wayne Coste, etc.) to debunk (or vet).
The black-hole treatment is rather noteworthy.
Want to know what I have that agents don't? Legacy. I've been around a long time, tried to write from the onset words worthy of preservation, respectfully and sincerely defended my positions with substantiation and scientific analysis, stood behind those words by re-purposing in forums I control, and demonstrated evolution in thought and understanding when presented with new evidence or analysis.
Bots don't change their minds. Agents don't change their minds either until new administrations come in, but even then typically one sockpuppet fades away and another comes into being, because legacy of their past actions can reflect poorly on them. Typically, though, they keep some continuity in the disinformation beach-heads that they defend.
FTR, Mr. McKee knows the Bruce Wayne to my Batman.
Here's the 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case. It is on my FB wall if you want to go at it and explain where it is wrong.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
[If you make comments under my blog, ping me here. Comments are moderated and I don't check hardly at all.]
//
x70 Maxwell C. Bridges : provide the corral (discussion forum and moderation) for Nookie-Doo to play
2023-09-06
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, First of all, nobody is asking you to "water down the Pentagon evidence by tossing in stuff about nukes." Keep those Pentagon discussions pure. Alas the discussion is about the cabal who is vulnerable from multiple directions, two of which are the Pentagon and WTC nuclear components.
Secondly, you can avoid me dousing your cabal with nuclear water in the places where your Pentagon hobby-horse is playing if you merely provided the corral (discussion forum and moderation) for it to play. Being an individual, I prefer single-front engagements rather than dividing myself over multiple fronts.
Thirdly, you were attacking the cabal (rightly) for their mistreatment of the Pentagon. Phooey-on-you if you can't understand (a) that the trendline for the cabal is establish with just two data points, (b) mistreatment of WTC nuclear evidence is your needed second data point for your cabal treadline, and (c) that nuclear data point -- assuming valid -- is figuratively more "nuclear damning" by orders-of-magnitude than your data point even on its best day, because its evidence is everywhere once you open your eyes to it and its figurative nuclear blast wave and fall-out is still possible.
You wrote: "If the latter can be proven true, then it can be done without my contribution."
You weasel.
For the record, the FGNW Prima Facie Case has been made; hasn't been debunked (no thanks to you for either); and based on the concerted black-hole efforts from, say, your cabal and YOU, to not even acknowledge let alone legitimately debate/debunk, is therefore assumed to be true -- fucking typos and all.
[Shame on you, Weasel Journalist, that you couldn't even be bothered to contribute to the eradication of its typos that still exist when you were asked for that professional favor by a long-time 9/11 Truther and FB friend.]
I supported you and your efforts for truth with every article and FB post over the last decade. I've pointed out your typos; beaten back trolls with analysis and substantiation (while you were otherwise busy); engaged the carousel-spinners on fringe topics (e.g., NPT, Woodsian DEW, deep-underground nukes) eventually proving many of them disinfo; and more importantly provided a second even more viable leg in substantiating allegations against the cabal.
Did you give me kudos for using high velocity physics analysis at the Pentagon in support of your no plane contention but from a different perspective? Ironic that this same high velocity physics analysis is what helps debunk the NPT@WTC premise.
The only thing asked from you -- respectfully, OCD-REPEATEDLY, OVER LITERALLY YEARS -- is a single venue for my hobby-horse's discussion on your platform(s) so that the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world can definitively get the nuclear facts, have them discussed rationally with substantiation, and get it legitimately debunked... or vetted.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding.* Or maybe more like 2x4 smacked up side my head: *whack!* *whack!* *whack* as two of my super powers trip over themselves into this discussion. Namely, my being naive and trusting, until given reason not to be.
Blatant evidence of the black-hole for all forms of legitimate 9/11 nuclear discussions.
"Et tu, Mr. McKee?"
Sunlight on error is what helps it destroy itself; sunlight on truth is what helps it grow.
Be the sunlight, Mr. McKee, and let's see what happens to my hobby-horse.
//
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : "black-hole treatment" is particularly noteworthy
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Re-writing the words of our patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin:
"Those who claim that a steel-framed high-rise building has never come down without the use of explosives ~have~ provided evidence that such an event would even be possible,"
only you are too stubborn to see it.
Such a softball premise for my hobby-horse.
The cover-up team will gladly show you the USGS data tables that don't show residual of RDX or other chemical explosives (that Dr. Steven Jones assured us was required to give nano-thermite -- assuming its usage -- the pulverizing brissance observed in the destruction.) So yeah! The claimants are factually right! This is an instance where chemical explosives did not bring down a steel-famed high-rise building!
The catch is what those USGS data tables do contain and that the report completely ignores in its plain-text explanation: Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample, indicating a fission process but at much lower levels than expected for even mini-nukes, hence the pre-mature ejaculation "thus no nukes at all" (according to Dr. Steven Jones).
Alas, the energy source leaks out of all 9/11 reports, stares at us from the data tables, literally glitches at us from taped videos, and should have been evident from the observed massive energy sink of pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitation acceleration.
Just like Dr. Sunder could say with a straight-face and no-lying-ticks that if conventional chemical explosives had been used (in context of WTC-7 and some magical pillar), it would have been deafening to those within 1/4 mile radius; and "this wasn't so, ergo no chemical explosives in use."
A bit of truthful misdirection, because the audio signature of late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices, which are technically "not explosives", would be quite different. The primary nuclear yield is targeted highly energetic neutrons, and any nuclear blast is well below 20% of the already tactical nuclear yield. It isn't using the medium of air and sudden changes in air pressure to destroy things at a distance from the detonation point; no, the highly energetic neutrons passing through all material and leaving energy (typically very high heat) behind deep within and throughout the molecular structure of the material would be very muted compared to a "blast".
The patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin, showed us how to legitimately and effectively take on disinformation, such as in his Popular Mechanics debunking: namely, chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section, sentence-by-sentence, if you have to.
In my own experience in searching for 9/11 Truth, I've proven this technique to be quite effect, such as when I disassembled the AE9/11 Truth FAQ's on Woodsian DEW and Nuclear Blasts.
Pay attention.
Nobody's dared to disassemble in a legitimate fashion my 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case, ala Dr. David Griffin.
David Chandler and Wayne Coste were both given opportunities. And many more.
The "black-hole treatment" is particularly noteworthy.
When a conspiracy theorist's premise goes completely bat-shit, is a stretch, is wrong, these are the premises that are allowed to exist and get cycles of attention and discussion. Wrong theories are permitted, because they are easy strawmen and provide fodder for ridicule to undermine anyone thinking out of the box.
However, when a conspiracy theorist's premise is valid but very damning, the black-hole treatment doesn't even acknowledge its existence, or brushes it aside as being inconsequential or muddying of waters of other premises for awaking the masses.
//
x74 Craig McKee : I won't be wading into those waters
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges Good luck with that. I won't be wading into those waters.
x76 Maxwell C. Bridges : The "black-hole treatment."
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, The "black-hole treatment." //
x78 Craig McKee : has to make choices about where they think their efforts will be most beneficial
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges No. Everyone has to make choices about where they think their efforts will be most beneficial. My priorities lie elsewhere.
x80 Maxwell C. Bridges : argument was valid early on
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, That argument was valid early on -- within the first 2 decades --, before your efforts thoroughly documented repeatedly most of the other anomalies. However, given that you persist (in the laudable undertaking) of being "Mr. 9/11 Reasonable Rational Journalist", have over time covered all of the other angles, and at this very moment are offering re-tread carousel spins through Pentagon and Shanksville, you really need to get out of your rut, change your bag, and go into different territory. You're becoming stale and repetitive.
Learn something new.
Both your reporting and 9/11 understanding need to be re-invigorated and energized. And what could do that better than "nuclear energy" that you have steadfastly ignored?!! A thorough debunking of 9/11 nuclear -- if it can be achieved -- is woefully needed by the 9/11 Truth Movement. And if it can't be debunked, the very least your journalism chops are required to present its evidence fairly.
Given that it has been over 2 decades, given that you've been an AE9/11Truth Insider, it would be most enlightening to know with whom you've conversed (even tangentially on nuclear topics) who might have influenced you into "black-holing" nuclear considerations, and what their reasons were. Who within AE9/11Truth drew the line in the sand? Do their reasons still hold up? Or are they weak "consensus 9/11 truther" arguments where they want you to lowest-common-denominator dumb down what you present, for fear of the details overwhelming?
Well it ain't the first 2 decades anymore. All of those lowest-common-denominator arguments have not netted the massive public enlightenment that (we) desire.
Vetted or debunked, my hobby-horse changes that.
It is fresh and invigorating, not stale and repetitive. This new (to you) thing is absolutely required for the 9/11 Truth Community, the world, and your 9/11 journalistic career. Don't be giving it the black-hole treatment; face your fears head-on.
You got this.
//
x82 Maxwell C. Bridges : it's about having a breakthrough with the public
2023-09-09
Craig McKee
Maxwell Bridges It isn't about learning something new, it's about having a breakthrough with the public.
x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : stale repetitions over things already well covered by you in previous carousel spins isn't going to do it
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, we can agree that "it's about having a breakthrough with the public"!!! Our disagreement is that you think stale repetitions over things already well covered by you in previous carousel spins is going to do it, and I don't. Two decades in, you done did dat; try something new.
I think the 9/11 nuclear components has been consistently treated by the government, its actors, and its 9/11TM infiltrators as a black-hole topic to be avoided at all costs, precisely because -- if vetted -- it would be a BREAKTHROUGH WITH THE PUBLIC on a figuratively nuclear scale with figurative nuclear fall-out still possible.
Here again, my naive and trusting super-powers are tripping over themselves with regards to you, that you neither see nor understand how 9/11 nuclear components IS THE DESIRED public breakthrough (on top of your other 9/11 reporting). Assuming it is valid.
But if my hobby-horse isn't valid, your efforts will be rewarded for definitively proving why it is wrong.
A related side-story: remember how I had phases (a) where I actively (maybe even OCD) supported the September Clues brand of No Planes Theory at the WTC; (b) where I studied all even tangential nuclear arguments; (c) where I plugged Nano-Thermite; or (d) where I as a rabid-fan of Dr. Judy Wood was purchasing her book out of my own pocket and sending it (with receiver's permission) to influential people / discussion opponents in 9/11 Truth so that we could literally go to the same pages and discuss its content rationally?
Embarrassingly, it was as a champion of those disinfo theories that I discovered their nuggets of truth and their disinformation. I was open-minded enough to see that when the pillars to my understanding of the disinfo premise were one-by-one knocked out (by my further research and analysis), I should stop championing them, apologize publicly for having been an ardent champion of something I now know is wrong, rescue the nuggets of truth, and spread the Truth from the results of my evolution and enlightenment whenever those disinfo premises were spun up in my social media engagements.
In diving into those disinfo premises -- mostly in search of nuggets of truth --, I had to take them seriously and consider all their evidence. I have legitimately publicly debunked NPT, Woodsian DEW, deep-underground nukes, hollow-towers, and Nano-Thermite.
Mr. McKee, you are being given a similar opportunity!
Assume my FGNW premise is disinfo but TAKE IT SERIOUSLY; consider all the evidence and persistent nuggets of truth from many sources. One of two outcomes:
1) While rescuing nuggets of truth, you might find -- leg-by-leg, hoof-by-hoof --the FGNW hobby-horse at the end of the day to be lame and unrideable, but listing/detailing why in one or more articles and postings. Do legitimately what AE9/11Truth and the cabal would not even touch with a 10-foot pole: debunk FGNW.
2) While rescuing nuggets of truth, you might find that the lack of AE9/11 speculation into how NT (mixed with other chemical explosives) could achieve the varied evidence and that the FGNW hobby-horse really did put its hoof-prints all over everything and thus got the black-hole treatment e.v.e.r.y.w.h.e.r.e. Except by you, because you'll document your revelation and receive your public catalyst, your public breakthrough, your lifting to 9/11 hero status and having to make fresh-rounds through the conspiracy talkshow circuits (and even find spin that into supplementing your income)!
My money is on #2, because since my understanding evolved towards FGNW, it has not been disabused of this notion despite many many sincere attempts. But this would be the sincerest, our Jefferson-Franklin style rational discussion!
We got this.
//
x86 Craig McKee : all for trying new approaches
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges I'm all for trying new approaches but that doesn't mean I think it will be beneficial for me to plunge into a subject like this when we have already proven controlled demolition. We need new approaches, not new evidence.
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : I hear is sucking black-hole silence from your inactivity
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, It doesn't sound like you are "all for trying new approaches." Instead, what I hear is sucking black-hole silence from your inactivity.
When you write: "we have already proven controlled demolition", who exactly is "we"? And if any of the "we" are members of the cabal, then it also matters how the controlled demolition was allegedly proven and if black-hole techniques weren't in full deployment.
You wrote: "We need new approaches, not new evidence."
David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
We're not talking about "new" evidence. We're talking about how relevant evidence was black-hole ignored.
When the word "nuclear" is bantied about in literal and figurative usages, it does bring that magnitude of energy -- as if casting spells -- to the weight of the discussion, and shines a different light on those who kept us away from these obvious nuclear deductions.
So when we figuratively talk about 9/11 nuclear fall-out today, everyone in steerage of AE9/11Truth, its FAQ's, and NT promotion would be in the cone-shaped line of fire. Yes, it is bad and bad publicity when this nuclear revelation spreads nuclear fallout on the actions and motives of leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement (e.g., the cabal), a final discrediting that was planned from the get-go in the infiltration, the built-in self-destruct that all disinformation premises contain.
So now that I've uttered the notion above, it dawns on me your new approach.
You wrote: "We need new approaches, not new evidence."
You should figuratively nuclear blast the cabal and discredit them using the nuclear argument (seconded by the Pentagon argument), and really dustify AE9/11Truth for the infiltrated limited-hang-out that it was providing nuclear-cock blockages and slow-walking "consensus weak truths of lowest-common-denominator", and thereby really nuclear vaporize a major crater equivalent to WTC-6 in the entirety of the 9/11 Truth Movement, a real psyops plot-twist for the public. Bad publicity the whole way, which is good publicity.
"9/11 Truth Leaders figuratively nuked for not legitimately considering literal nukes for 9/11, thereby nuking major holes into the public's understanding and misunderstandings of 9/11."
There you go, right there, Mr. McKee. Exactly what you asked for. The new approach.
Of course, when the existing but historically ignored evidence is fairly presented in the frame work of Dr. Andre Gsponer's late-3rd generation nuclear devices, each of the cabal is afforded the opportunity to say:
"In light of this different analysis previously unknown to me and seeing the FGNW's ability to address much wider swaths of evidence and anomalies, I consider this more viable, apologize for having led people astray with NT, and from now own will champion this nuclear truth." And all will be forgiven.
Given that you are already making a drama about the cabal, you should energize it with nuclear drama and let the fall-out go wide with the infiltration conspiracy of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Another reason this is important, because public nuclear 9/11 breakthroughs makes today's COVID bio weapon/defense as belonging to the same ethical and moral camp, and unbeneficial for this planet's survival.
Your destiny. Step up. You got this.
//
x90 Maxwell C. Bridges : could simply be a Jefferson-Franklin style exchange
2023-09-09
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, In case my humor went missing and to be clear, I am not advocating a mud slinging fest against the cabal. But, you are already going there with the Pentagon. More importantly, release of the suppressed 9/11 nuclear speculation is going to fling greater amounts of mud on the cabal or worse, as per karma.
The new approach to bring a massive public breakthrough could simply be a Jefferson-Franklin style exchange or interview that you publish: you asking (in writing) questions about my Nookie-doodoo hobby-horse, and me answering (in writing) with substantiation. [Copy-paste]
David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
We're not talking about "new" evidence. We're talking about how relevant evidence was black-hole ignored.
Along the way, I could give summaries about why certain 9/11 premises are wrong and disinfo. It could be a real clearing of the baffles and setting public understanding at an enlightened level.
We got this.
//
Part 6: Xander Arenas
x92 Xander Arenas : You really want to be proven wrong
2023-09-10
Maxwell Bridges You really want to be proven wrong so that you can finally surrender your nuclear hobby horse? Provide me the USG data that you say shows the requisite amount of Uranium decay chain radionuclides.
[2023-07-08] Maxwell Bridges
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl
x94 Maxwell C. Bridges : Yes, so that I can finally put my nuclear hobby horse out to pasture
2023-09-10
Dear Mr. Xander Arena, Yes, I really want to be proven wrong so that I can finally put my nuclear hobby horse out to pasture!
With the tone of "busywork" you wrote: "Provide me the USG data that you say shows the requisite amount of Uranium decay chain radionuclides."
Beat you to it, and at the same time prove that you can't follow links.
"Section 8 Radiation => Nukes" from the article I posted in my comment to you. The second half of that section provides an explanation into what the USGS tables show, as well as links to the USGS source material.
The tables document the Uranium decay paths (1) Strontium, Yttrium, Zircontium, Niobium, and (2) Barium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodym.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html
I should note that Mr. Jeff Prager extracted the information from the USGS data tables and wrote up his results. When AE9/11Truth spun up their FAQ disinfo to debunk "nuclear blasts", they don't reference Prager's dust analysis either in the plain text or in the footnotes. They do mention Prager in the footnotes in an almost defamatory way and cherry-pick inconsequential nits from his other publications. I call that the black-hole treatment.
The end of the section in my posting quotes from Mr. Prager's dust analysis. But what the hell, seeing how you can't follow links. Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data in Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis:
+++
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
+++ end
The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion.
+++
The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.
The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.
The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products.
The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.
+++ end
//
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS Leachate Table
PUBS.USGS.GOV
x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : taken this discussion to my FB wall
2023-09-10
Dear Mr. Xander Arena, out of respect for a thread under Mr. McKee's posting, I have taken this discussion to my FB wall. I sent you a friend request. Accept. Go to my profile and search (FGNW).
Both entries in the search result need your attention.
Having a Devil of a time trying to get a FB link that could get you there easier. Maybe this one...
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl
//
x98 Xander Arena : you clearly have no scientific foundation
2023-09-10
Maxwell Bridges I'll start slowly since you clearly have no scientific foundation. Where is the Cesium137?
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : you have no common-sense, lack scientific foundation much?
2023-09-10
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Xander Arena, You complain that I have no scientific foundation? Wow.
I complain that you have no common-sense as evident by (a) your inability to accept a FB friend request so that this conversation could be continued under the article pinned to the top of my FB wall and its comment that explicitly tags you, (b) your inability to follow links [a common-failing for ChatGPT bots] to the USGS's table on the dust, and (c) your inability to Ctrl+F in your browser with "Cesium" while on the webpage with USGS's table on the dust to find exactly what you are looking for.
I guess I'll have to start this slowly since you clearly have no common-sense.
Here is the direct FB link to the article on my FB wall where this conversation should resume, out of respect for Mr. McKee.
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl
Uranium has decay paths (1) Strontium, Yttrium, Zircontium, Niobium, and (2) Barium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodym.
Cesium 137 doesn't appear in either of them. Lack scientific foundation much?
Answer on under the linked article. You'll have to either accept my FB friend request or submit one of your own to me probably to be able to see it.
//
x102 Maxwell C. Bridges : exhibiting all of the traits of a ChatGPT bot
2023-09-10
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, I'm trying to get Mr. Xander Arena to continue this discussion under the article that I have pinned to the top of my FB wall. Alas, he is exhibiting all of the traits of a ChatGPT bot:
(1) can't accept FB friend requests,
(2) can't follow links, let alone discuss content from those links knowledgably,
(3) can't write more than twitter-length,
(4) throws out red-herring Cesium 137.
Keep an eye on him, a bot assigned to you and with instructions to muddy waters in off-limit topics.
//
Part 7: Pete Davenport
x104 Maxwell C. Bridges : assume but vet
2020-09-
It is fine to make assumptions and for the sake of discussion assume as true certain portions of the official story. The issue is that the research and analysis -- particularly in the face of glaring anomalies some of which are contrary to expectations from high-velocity incidents -- should have continued and uncovered which assumptions at the end of the day could NOT be true. You go through the hoops of assuming things true so that analysis would either validate or invalidate those assumptions.
This is the purposeful, deceitful "mistake" that Mr. Chandler made at both the Pentagon and WTC. He never circled back around and validated the initial assumptions. Or more importantly, he never circled back to invalidate assumptions.
The reason Mr. Chandler draws the line at the Pentagon is because the WTC is more glaring in his stop-gap, no-assumption-validation.
For Christ sake, ain't nobody validated super-dooper nano-thermite, which only appeared in Dr. Jones' samples and not those of USGS and others. Ain't nobody looked at various anomalous pieces of evidence -- such as pulverization or duration of underground hot-spots -- and definitively explained "this is how NT mixed with a chemical explosive would have been mounted to achieve", say, steel arches/sags, wall assembly "steel doobies", pulverization of concrete into fine powder [which is a HUGE energy sink.]
//
x106 Pete Davenport : We know the towers were blown up
2023-09-
Pete Davenport
We know the towers were blown up.
What's the point of arguing about the details?
Pete Davenport
The important narrative is, "WHO DUNNIT?"
x108 Maxwell C. Bridges : My hobby-horse left its hoof-prints everywhere
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, You have me in agreement that the "who" is an important narrative, but I don't think we can get to the "who" without fully understanding more of the "how". Why? Because the "who" has spent plenty of resources after-the-fact to obscure the "how", to introduce all manner of disinformation to hide the truth, and even to infiltrate and steer the 9/11 Truth Movement. [Which we all knew would happen, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it." We need to ask "how" they steered us in addition to slow-walking us.]
We've almost met the limit expressed by former Reagan CIA Director William Casey (paraphrased) "We will know our (disinfo) efforts are complete when everything the public thinks they know about something is wrong."
Here's a brief analogy about why the "how" is important. Man gets killed in kitchen with a knife.
[Version A] Woman was being attacked by the strange man, and used her handy Kitchen Cutco knife from the counter to defend herself. [Version B] Woman forged and honed the perfect knife for weeks in the garage giving it a leather handle and ornamental engravings, and used it like a speed-crazy sewing-machine up and down the dead man's body.
The "how" matters.
Case in point: When people throw about willy-nilly that "the WTC towers were destroyed with explosives," every country on this planet has explosives... Oh, wait! Supposedly it was super-duper nano-thermite, which many countries have, isn't an explosive but an incidiary, needs to be mixed with RDX or something brissant. [According to Dr. Steven Jones himself just after he used his nuclear credentials to "repudiate all forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement".]
My 9/11 hobby-horse is that multiple tactical late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices of a hybrid fission-fusion nature releasing 80% of the yield as highly energetic neutrons were used 4 per detonation level (x 6-20 detonation levels) in the towers, and in WTC-4 leveling the main edifice at a neat line with its North Wing and leaving its gold vaults, in WTC-6 leaving its outer walls while gutting the inside but aimed upwards to allow some preservation of its vaults, in WTC-5 the punch-out holes, and in WTC-7 on that infamous key "pillar 47".
My hobby-horse left its hoof-prints everywhere if you just open your eyes to it.
Therefore, assuming the validity of this "how", the list of suspected countries gets reduced to two: the USA and Israel. Based on the mischaracterization of the "dancing Arabs" in a van with a 9/11 miral painted on it who were Mossad, it wouldn't surprise me if Mossad was WTC boots-to-the-ground while the neo-cons in charge (e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld) ran interference with their dozen military exercises for 9/11.
Getting into the "how" also explains lots of pysops disinfo that we went through in the meantime: from deep-underground nukes, to beam-from-space-DEW, to nano-thermite, to no-planes-at-the-WTC.
"USA/Israel Nuked Us on 9/11"
Any small but growing whiff in the public conscience that any form of nuclear weapons were used from our own stockpiles by our agents and/or allies against innocent US civilians on US soil in the heart of its commerce on 9/11 [despite the devices to be proven to be comparatively low radiation -- the good news from 9/11] could/should/would lead even today to a figurative massive nuclear fallout to the reputations of all sorts of people, agencies, institutions, and corporate media.
The complicity with the cover-up, the distraction, the official narrative would become a type of litmus test that could figuratively nuke many a career in all sorts of fields of endeavor.
They know this, which is why "the black-hole treatment".
//
x110 Pete Davenport : aftermath w/ Geiger counters
2023-09-
Did anyone scope out the aftermath w/ Geiger counters? Tip: Don't spend so much time telling me you know exactly what happened, and don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.
I just want the truth & anyone who thinks they can nit-pick about any observations I have - spend your time elsewhere. The TRUTH / details will eventually come out - and I am not one that wants to continually kick the TRUTH can down the road and ask for $ ETC.
x112 Maxwell C. Bridges : title
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, You ask an interesting question: "Did anyone scope out the aftermath w/ Geiger counters?" But it is partly a trick question.
The answer is: "No, they did not scope out the aftermath with Geiger counters." Shoddy measurement sampling is a bane to all 9/11 Government reports, as are scope-limited reports from the onset. They had the really "hot" areas off-limits [aside from melting your boots.] They outlawed cameras and Geiger counters in the clean-up workers at GZ, by order of the Mayor.
I did review the reports, and provide a snippet of my critique of such below. Before offering that, allow me to interject the reports do have finger-prints of nuclear activities, so their "trick" was to frame all "nuclear devices" as being "big, bad, lots-of-radiation and much more than in the data tables, thus no nukes were involved." Not so.
From a "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
=== begin "Section 11. Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al"
The fiction in the 911TM about the WTC not having any radiation seems to come from the report: "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.
https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552
Among its flaws:
- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions "Uranium" twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
The Lioy report states:
+++
We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.
+++ endThe tritium study re-define "background levels", so this report might be following the same pattern. Except that this report provided neither the measured values nor the values of what they "background level".
It is significant when they write: "Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level." For the gravity-driven-pile-drivers that the government attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing radioactive elevated to twice background level should have existed at all. Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even "slightly elevated beta activity" should not be left around as a signature if such were the only cause of destruction.
With regards to radiation, the argument is sometimes made that there is no proof of "measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero". This has been proven wrong. On the flip side, the opposite cannot be proven: namely of "~no~ measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero." Where are the reports that measure systematically, thoroughly, and timely all forms of radiation at or below background levels?
The Lioy report characterizes the dust as:
+++
[T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-Âμm diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-Âμm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-Âμm diameter)... Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers).
+++ endThis is a straw man created by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these Âμm particles and by framing it as "near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)".
First, Lioy does ~not~ state that there was ~no~ fine (<2.5-Âμm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-Âμm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-Âμm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
Second, they make no effort to describe "mini-nuke" correctly for the observed outcomes. They allow the imagination of the readers, formed by many years of nuclear weapons PR hype, to fill in the blanks.
=== end From a "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW"
//
x114 Pete Davenport : Thanks for taking the time / details
2023-09-
Maxwell Bridges Thanks for taking the time / details, Maxwell Bridges
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : flubbing of the physics problem of the wings against light poles at high velocity
2023-09-
https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/1750238365416448/?comment_id=1750259705414314&reply_comment_id=1750817322025219
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Regarding Chandler and the Pentagon, it is the light poles with high velocity physics that really undermines his credibility. He comes on to the scene as Mr. High School Physics Teacher as if all humble and whatnot. In reality, he has at least a B.S. in Physics before he went back and got the teaching certificate.
As such, his flubbing of the physics problem of the wings against light poles at high velocity? Right up his alley of expertise even for high school students. But to so spectacularly IGNORE it and not discuss it? Why, that exposes the agenda.
==== This right here is below the FB fold of "see more."
Therefore I get to remind you that Mr. High School Physics Teacher (Chandler) had sufficient college level physics to understand nuclear power and nuclear reactions. But when cornered by me on the theme of a nuclear 9/11, suddenly he doesn't have the educational background in that physics to be able to comprehend. [Not to brag but to validate the claim, the first three semesters of engineering school contains the same physics classes that the physics majors take, and in 3rd semester (if not 2nd as well) it gets into nuclear concepts. Been there, done that with my B.S. in an engineering field.]
So although I praise Mr. Chandler's videos of high school physics applied to the towers' destruction, here again he had his hand on the steering wheel of the 9/11 TM by ignoring the obvious questions in physics having to do with the massive energy sink. They never cough up realistic speculation into how NT was position in the towers to achieve what was observed (and heard in low decibels). They never discuss WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. Or the evidence in Dr. Wood's book [and remember Chandler's piss-poor good, bad, ugly book review. One of my better $50 gifts that keeps on giving. Agent of disinfo A will never engage, let alone debunk, disinfo B from another agent.]
"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored..." Dr. Griffin
//
x118 Pete Davenport : Joo-dy Wood is disinfo
2023-09-
Maxwell Bridges Joo-dy Wood is disinfo, cold event BS. I don;t dispute DEW but not in the case of the Twin Towers & all the burnt vehicles about the place.
Listening to her say the word "dustification" over and over, years ago, on Coast To Coast Am - was truly ANNOYING.
x120 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE9/11Truth failed to debunk Dr. Judy Wood's work legitimately
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, don't be such a brainless bot. Her name is spelled Dr. Judy Wood. I have personally debunked her work, which AE9/11Truth failed to do. Why did they fail while I succeeded? Because I address the nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's disinformation vehicle.
When I debunked Woodsian-DEW, part of the reason was ABL and beams-from-space having optics and energy sources (sufficient to meet the WTC energy sink) issues that makes it unreasonable. She did a shitty job of nuclear research and dropped the innuendo of cold fusion. If she did any nuclear research, she omitted the good parts like nothing on neutron bombs (of the 1970's) that became the late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices hybrid fission-fusion. Nuclear power is well understood; only a disinfo agenda would prevent her from powering her DEW with something real-world actionable from within the towers.
When highly energetic neutrons pass through materials, they typically leave energy behind, deep and throughout the molecular structure of the materials. The result is "dustification".
All the burned vehicles like on West Broadway near WTC-7 (before it came down) and in the parking lot can be explained from the side-effects of the FGNW. Namely, while 80% of the already tactical nuclear yield of each device was in the form of directed highly energetic neutrons, the remaining 20% was in the traditional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The heat and blast wave gave us the "steel doobies" highlighted in Dr. Judy Wood's work, as well as arches/sags. However, the EMP slipping out line-of-sight through window slits and hitting vehicles (generating Eddy currents of sufficient amperes to heat the metal to ignite things.)
However, this video of WTC-4 (from Dr. Wood) gives me pause to rethink the extent of EMP. Maybe the FGNW destruction of the main edifice of WTC-4 (dustified to street level and not below into the gold vaults) and EMP sources closer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRhJgaa3qLw&t=104s
Don't answer me here, because this is off-topic in this Pentagon discussion, but be thinking of an answer. How does nano-thermite explain WTC-4, such a neat cut from its North Wing? Ask yourself why AE9/11Truth would not explore this smoking gun legitimately.
//
RA-008. BUILDING FOUR - NOW YOU SEE IT ... NOW YOU DON'T
YOUTUBE.COM
x122 Pete Davenport : I am NOT going to read your long comment
2023-09-
Maxwell Bridges Guess what? I am NOT going to read your long comment. Does that make me dis-info? Does that make me an agent? NO, because I am working. Self-employed. And Jewdy Wood is providing disinfo. How could DEW beams from the Buck Rogers spaceship destroy floors, 1 by 1. NO, they could not.
I'll let the chips fall where they may - and they did, on 9/11. 'Nuff said.
x124 Maxwell C. Bridges : Unmasking you as a bot was not my agenda. You just kind of proved it yourself.
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, Your twitter-length response wastes precious characters trying to explain your ChapGPT's limitations on not being able to read and comprehend long comments, and it certainly isn't going to follow links to the WTC-4 videos.
If you are working now, get out of FB! When you're done with work, done with dinner, done with the dishes, and desire to educate yourself before bedtime, come back to my FB comment, read it, and respond with your objections rationally. "Not reading it" and bragging about not reading it? That doesn't cut it.
Another clue that you're ChapGPT. Your algorithms confused my debunking of Dr. Judy Wood's work as being me championing her premises. Had you been a rational and curious human, your reading of my comment would have informed you of my true nature and agenda.
Unmasking you as a bot was not my agenda. You just kind of proved it yourself.
//
x126 Pete Davenport : CHAP GPT - whatever the f--- that is ~
2023-09-
Maxwell Bridges Hey, I am just out for TRUTH. NOT reading miscellaneous ramblings of other TRUTHERS - self-professed - like yourself.
I am WELL AWARE of the damage done to the other buildings @ WTC.
Spend your energy elsewhere..
You are confronting one who is only interested in the TRUTH about 9/11, and you could spend your energy more wisely.
CHAP GPT - whatever the f--- that is ~
I was part of the Rethink 9-11 team supposedly, until my 2 prospective political agents backed out - yes, to run Federally on 9/11 TRUTH, so I don't need any lessons from Maxwell Bridges, THX just the same. Be gone
x128 Maxwell C. Bridges : oh the things bragged about!
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, Bragging about "not reading" even the "miscellaneous ramblings of other TRUTHERS" does not support your contention that you are "only interested in the TRUTH about 9/11." If you truly did not read it -- and I have no reason to doubt your fortitude in not reading things --, then you would not be in an intellectual position to objectively judge that it was supposedly "miscellaneous ramblings" or reasoned argumentation.
Kudos for being aware of damage to other WTC buildings, but demerits for not being curious enough to rationally explore how they got damaged and how various pieces of anomalous evidence (some of which Dr. Judy Wood collected) came into being. Those non-actions combined with bragging about your non-action [as far as my premise goes] contradict you, "who is only interested in the TRUTH about 9/11."
Yes, this discussion doesn't completely belong here, except that the theme was the cabal who steered the 9/11 TM.
When you run across me elsewhere in FB in the 9/11 discussions, this will remain an outstanding issue needed resolution.
//
x130 Pete Davenport : I do not like the insinuation that I am a bot.
2023-09-
Maxwell Bridges Hey, I'm no BOT, Mr. And in taking a break, [from actual WORK], I DID just now read through your comments. I also have a good memory and we got into deep discussion a couple of years ago. I don't need to spend the rest of my life trying to figure out exactly WHAT happened to evry WTC building. When eventually society in general grows a pair - the criminals - at least some of them, still alive, can explain their actions in a court of law.
I did MY part when Richard went on his cross-CANADA tour in 2014, I put up my hand in Toronto and said I was willing to help. About 50 people across the country did the same - and most of them backed out, due to fear, I am sure.
Not me. Not Craig. And again, I do not like the insinuation that I am a bot.
Paste: "Unmasking you as a bot was not my agenda. You just kind of proved it yourself."
Bye Bye, Sir.
x132 Maxwell C. Bridges : your word at face-value that you are not a bot
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, Because trusting is one of my super-powers, I will take your word at face-value that you are not a bot. I can see that repeated bot claims could have hurt your feelings.
But now that we're talking about feelings. How did you think that made ME feel *whimper* when you BRAGGED about not reading the words that I had SLAVED over! *Sniff* When all you could offer was shoot-from-the-hip, shallow, twitter-length brush-off twat!
*Wiping tears from eyes* When I had to face the utter hypocrisy of you bragging about being a woke truther while also bragging about not reading the researched -- never invalidated -- 9/11 premise of another sincere (if OCD) truther... THAT was most hurtful and sad indeed! *wiping eyes again*
You wrote: "I don't need to spend the rest of my life trying to figure out exactly WHAT happened to evry WTC building."
Dude, that's why there's division of labor! You don't have to spend the rest of your life figuring out HOW or WHAT! Just as before your weak understanding stood on the shoulders of others, it can also stand now on the shoulders of my work to get to the next and proper level of 9/11 Truth, particularly now in light that the Pentagon cabal that you decry, also caste hypnotic NT spells over you at the WTC.
*Snap of the fingers*
Remember how in Lord of the Rings, "one ring to bring them together, one ring to rule them all." FGNW is the one 9/11 (valid) premise that could unite the TM movement, ignite public awareness, and have figurative radioactive fall-out still today offering many (career) casualties in the deceivers.
FGNW exposes NT, Woodian-DEW, and (mini, micro, deep under-ground, etc.) 9/11 nukes as pysops limited hang-outs. FGNW validates the Pentagon ruse, "in for a penny, in for a pound."
FGNW offers a clearer view of the deceit various agencies and commissions exerted as omissions and misdirections.
FGNW offers figuratively radioactive fall-out still today where needed to many a career.
FGNW aligns itself nicely with COVID in terms of the breadth of the lies.
//
x134 Pete Davenport : spend hours on end debating minutia
2023-09-
So be it.
I SAID... I was willing to run for election on 9/11 Truth in Canada. I don't need to spend hours on end debating minutia when the larger populace doesn't even GET the basics. See you down the road - but I ain't kickin' that truth can there whilst asking for $ and going to Lost Vegas, etc etc etc
x136 Maxwell C. Bridges : "debating minutia" shouldn't even be a thing here
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, You wrote: "I don't need to spend hours on end debating minutia..."
I do not doubt your contention of spending hours on Facebook, but as far as "debating minutia" goes, that shouldn't even be a thing here for several reasons.
(a) The minutia are facts that need to find their place in the true narrative of 9/11;
(b) You're expected to acknowledge them as valid [or prove them invalid] and move on;
(c) Any debate should be on the larger premise, as in, what do these "minutia facts" paint for a big picture when together, as opposed to when they are ignored and omitted;
(d) I'm a sincere seeker of truth.
You continued: "... when the larger populace doesn't even GET the basics."
Dude, "shock-and-awe" got us into this; shock-and-awe can get us out.
From here on in this discussion, let's assume that my 9/11 FGNW premise is correct, becoming more and more correct when applying it to, not just the towers, but also to WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7.
When Mr. Craig McKee goes nuclear, we'll get nuclear shock-and-awe in the public, because that's what any public whiff of 9/11 nuclear involvement will do. And today 20 years after the fact, figurative radioactive nuclear fallout can still be measured against a host of conspirators, cover-up agents, and the like. THIS IS BIG, and BIGGER than the Pentagon... If true, if the assumption holds.
At any rate, instead of bragging about what you didn't read, simply read it, see if it makes sense, see if it connects together more data points (the minutia you want to ignore).
I'm just a Blues Brother on a mission from God: "feed my sheep." This I have done.
The public's 9/11 nuclear shock-and-awe is for you to ignite, grass-hopper.
//
x138 Pete Davenport : listening to the right people. And doing research, yes
2023-09-
Maxwell Bridges What is important is listening to the right people. And doing research, yes.
I know enough to debate obvious liars, they seem to disappear from comments when I put them up to the task. I'm not disparaging any research you have done, and you've already implied that I might be a BOT.
Working on an acronym - Thanks for the 'kind words', Sir.
x140 Maxwell C. Bridges : a thumb to the steering of 9/11 TM thinking
2023-09-
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, When you proclaim that listening to the right people is important, very subjective it is who is deemed "right people." And even those with PhD can be paid extra, under-the-table, or any which way, to apply "a thumb to the steering of 9/11 TM thinking." What are "wrong people," and in what way are they "wrong?" The literal themes for my hobby-horse where legitimate, substantiating conversation is given "the black-hole treatment."
Does the "debate obvious liars" refer to our discussion and me? Other than my pseudonym -- my batman, as it were -- I am entirely sincere and genuine and truthful. [I'm a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth. And if you knew anything about Master Masons, it would be how we revere Truth.]
I haven't "disappeared from comments when put up to the task." In fact, I have an OCD history of collecting my comments off-line and re-purposing (later; when my procrastination gets beaten back) to venues that I control, which has instilled in me the habit of first writing words worthy of preservation.
Thank you for not disparaging my research. Because I don't provide model number or color to my FGNW speculation, it ain't an end-station but an important branch line needing sincere and genuine exploration, in part because otherwise it gets concerted efforts into "black-hole treatment."
As a Blues Brother (but not a Blues fan) on a mission from God -- feed my sheep --, my only desire is to plant the FGNW seed.
Thereafter whenever you watch any of the WTC destruction footage, you'll think and ask yourself if the observed pulverizing energy and relative silence except for falling crushing debris.
Thereafter whenever you watch FEMA/NIST videos of the Fresh Kills Scrapyard months after much debris processed, you'll think FGNW particularly when the video tape completely looses its marbles except for sometimes audio track [because video tape recorders were highly succeptable to major glitches caused by radiation.] Digital cameras weren't as prone to failure, and could and did capture radiation in the "snow pixels" when panning over debris.
You'll water the FGNW seeds yourself whenever you revisit quite literally any aspect of 9/11 (at the WTC) and its cover-up.
And thus, ye receive nourishment that thou knowest not thy needeth of, spoketh the shepard (from underneath his batman mask).
//
Part 8: Linear evidence assessment
x142 Colin Doran : Linear evidence assessment.
2023-09-22
Linear evidence assessment.
Mistaking a working hypothesis for a conclusion.
Not evaluating the working hypothesis against the evidence that contradicts it.
Not having a theory that is logical or credible.
Presenting a conclusion that involves a plan without recognising the fact that a plan should make sense to the people planning it.
Being involved in a movement whose objective is to contradict one version of an event and replace it with any other no matter how implausible or illogical.
Part 9: Lorraine Clarke
x144 Lorraine Clarke : I'll never know what you wrote
2023-09-26
Hi there, I notice you wrote a comment to me under McKee's derisory post on Wayne Coste.
Thanks for the support, but alas I'll never know what you wrote, as McKee has yet again resorted to his favoured tactic of deleting all comments which question his gross hypocrisy and disingenuous statements.
A snake in the grass.
This happened years ago when I first encountered his Truth & Shadows blog, and posted there. I was viciously attacked by him and Adam Ruff, and numerous comments of mine were deleted, to ensure that he had the last word.
He is devious and dishonest.
Also derivative to the point of plagiarism of his idols CIT.
x146 Maxwell C. Bridges : |<--this-->| far from getting his deceit publicly exposed on T&S
2023-09-26
Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, I have several super-powers, such as being naive and trusting until given reason not to be, persistence, and verbosity. I have internet-known Mr. McKee since just after he started T&S, where I was a regular under the handle "Senor El Once." [I vaguely remember your name as a participant there.]
I have Mr. McKee's email; he knows the Bruce Wayne to my Batman. Rarely I'd use this back-channel; FB messenger nowadays also infrequently. For most articles on 9/11 he has written, I've provided feedback on typos and concepts. One time, when I was still a left- and back-handed Woodsian-DEWer (and wrong), he let me publish an article to T&S about it, which mostly was about being objective: "Even if Dr. Wood is wrong, nuggets of truth within must be rescued." Man did it bring out the trolls, particularly HR.
Owing to the first two super powers, I have been giving Mr. McKee the benefit of the doubt all these years: he let me exist and plant my (verbose and articulate) seeds in his forum; he sometimes took my advice; he didn't mind me championing disinfo topics such as September Clues, NPT, Hollow Towers, SimVictims, NT, Woodsian DEW, although to me at the time I was on the fence until I had done my due-diligence; when my understanding on various disinfo topics changed, he let me disassemble its new would-be champions with the truths I had learned leading to my own conversion.
Mr. McKee banned me in 2014 from T&S, not for my actions but for the suspected future over-reactions of my detractors and how they would spoil the discussion/thread/posting if I made even a single (verbose) comment here or there.
My evolution in 9/11 thought had brought me to FGNW, which is the direct result of the hook-up of Woodsian-DEW with nuclear devices. Today with 20/20 hindsight, I recognize the black-hole treatment. I couldn't get McKee to allow me to publish an article on this new concept; couldn't get him to review it to give me feedback like what I provided him; or couldn't get him to publish a placeholder article that allows the discussions to legitimately go into nuclear topics. I wanted a coral for my hobby-horse to ride in, and would have saved me from having dropped FGNW seeds in other discussions (verbose, yes; but individual comment and relation to thread), to which agents would react with silly games.
The two main detractors were HybridRogue1 [aka HR aka Willy Whitten] and Adam Ruff [aka AR].
HR got banned a few months after me after an almost astroturf tuff between HR and McKee that HR exasperated with purposely inflamatory posting/comments on his own blog, which actually was the nature and purpose of his blog. [On more than a few occassions on COTO and T&S, the rules of decorum were applied against HR resulting in deletion of his postings and comments. So HR created postings on his own blog underneath of which he'd be pretty much the only commenter writing all of the vile things he couldn't write on COTO or T&S about others. I believe he got to three postings on "Maxwell Bridges Disinfo Agent", each filled with hundreds of only his discrediting comments.]
However, this was also the time-frame when a long-term deceit of HR's was exposed. [Early on, HR was given a copy of Dr. Wood's book, which he ran out the clock on reading much less reviewing; then claimed for 2.5 years it was destroyed as bird cage liner to avoid rationally discussing it (for nuggets of truth); then after my unvoluntary departure from T&S in a discussion with a new T&S participant, HR admitted he still had the book and quoted from it.]
I suspect or like to think that the exposure of the Dr. Wood's book deceit (after maintaining the lie for 2.5 years) completely discredited the sockpuppet of HR as a valued contributor to T&S [where a sliding window of the last 3000 comments on T&S would reveal 1/3 of them were HR's].
As for Mr. Adam Ruff, he was |<--this-->| far from getting his deceit publicly exposed on T&S [for weasel lies relating to Dr. Wood and FGNW], so I'm sure this factored heavily into my T&S banishment.
The credibility of Mr. Adam Ruff and Mr. HR are in tatters from their disengenuous T&S debates with me on my hobby-horse topic.
Adam Ruff
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
HybridRogue
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/laying-bare-propagana-techniques-and.html
I don't recommend reading my blog front-to-back, A-to-Z, such a repetitive bore it has become even for me. Certainly, if you're directed anywhere on my blog, make use of the expand/collapse section features to more effectively scan the work and bore into areas of interest.
Adam Ruff still advises Mr. McKee.
Mr. McKee overtly states that he wants to use the Pentagon to bring public awareness of 9/11 deceit. Despite years of my begging, he won't even allow a placeholder for FGNW discussions to transpire on the forums he owns, even if I author it and defend it in the comments.
Black-hole treatment.
You wrote: "I notice you wrote a comment to me... I'll never know what you wrote, as McKee has yet again resorted to his favoured tactic of deleting all comments which question his gross hypocrisy and disingenuous statements."
Not completely. My comments, which undoubtedly related to my FGNW hobby-horse, were the true targets. My comments related to the AE9/11Truth cabal who McKee charges with steering of Pentagon towards OCT, because the same cabal also black-holed all legitimate nuclear considerations at the WTC.
You wrote in reference to Mr. McKee: "A snake in the grass. He is devious and dishonest."
This is direct contraction with my naive and trusting super-powers that remain in place until given reason to be. I don't know if I can concur with your personal assessment. All I know is he's doing a good job of giving my hobby-horse the black-hole treatment.
You wrote in reference to Mr. McKee: "Also derivative to the point of plagiarism of his idols CIT."
I told him that he is stuck in a rut and spinning the same carousel he was 10 years ago with the Pentagon. The main issues is that the 80+ surveillance videos that could show an approaching plane (or flyover plane) will never be released (in our lifetimes). If he was sincere about bring greater public awareness to the deceit of 9/11, he could literally nuclear energize his efforts and outreach if he would objectively as a journalist legitimately and rationally consider my FGNW hobby-horse premise; hosted a place for discussion to transpire. Whether ultimately debunked or vetted, either outcome is valuable and important to the 9/11 TM, and he'd be the one who brought it to light.
Black-hole treatment for nuclear 9/11 topics.
If any part of FGNW is acknowledged even for the purposes of debunking it, it gets validated as a concern. The cat jumps out of the bag. Worse, the figurative massive nuclear fall-out starts with all sorts of (career) casualties, not just the AE9/11Truth cabal.
Mr. Adam Ruff, with or without the skills of HybridRogue1, knows that he can't defeat me/FGNW in debate; he won't even FB friend me and has me FB blocked; game playing will be quickly exposed; and unless bad behavior is repressed and objectivity is exhibited, the portion of my legacy that intersected with AR in the past, could be used to impeach him today.
AE9/11Truth might also cause Mr. McKee problems if he had any involvement with their FAQ's that I debunked.
Mr. McKee's Achilles Heel and where outside pressure (Adam Ruff) is exerted on Mr. McKee, is my FGNW hobby-horse. Black-hole treatment for nuclear 9/11 topics.
//
x148 Lorraine Clarke : a toothless terrier
2023-09-26
Well thankyou for that!
I've mentioned that I used to see Ruff as McKee's Rottweiler who he would unleash on me when he wanted to tear me apart, but I have since realised that he is a toothless terrier.
He exposed himself with his superficial and frequently erroneous statements on the Pentagon event.
I find him a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit, and generally ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in "the truth movement".
I used to study the WTC event years ago, and like you, I can see the merit in many of Judy Wood's questions, if not all of her answers.
Her attackers deal only with replacing selected lines of her theories with their own hobby horses, without addressing the many conundrums that remain.
I accept that we will never know the whole story. It is far too complex, deliberately so. We know that the military has weapons much more sophisticated than anything they tell us about. They can do anything they choose.
The naivete of Truthers who argue "Well why would they go to so much trouble to fake a plane crash at the Pentagon when they could just crash a plane" is stunning. Or else evidence of their duplicity.
On T&S I had the username Ruby Gray. An homage to my grandmothers, and my other name. But although many commenters use pseudonyms, apparently when I do so, it is evidence of my Machiavellian intent, highly suspicious, and used as a big stick to publicly beat me with, for the sole purpose of discrediting my research.
I have tried for years to approach this clique of CIT groupies with the new evidence I have found, assuring them that we are on the same page, and that after CIT's errors are corrected, my work builds on theirs and drives it forward again after 12 years of stagnation.
But they are obstinately welded to the ludicrous idea that accusing a dead taxi driver of lying, has somehow "solved 9/11" and negates the necessity for unravelling any evidence.
They all disgust me.
How they can apply the word "truth" to themselves, I know not.
Eric Sandstrom is a viper. Mentally unhinged and a loose cannon. He had a very public psychotic breakdown all over FB 2 or 3 years ago. I'm glad I live on a different continent. I try not to inflame his insanity by interacting with him, but he is now targeting me again.
Ruff has blocked me, so presumably is now libelling me to his heart's content from behind his wall of anonymity.
Adam Eisenberg, now calling himself Adam Charles, is another who has blocked me after having once sought me out and including me in his "inner circle" of researchers on his "Orion Project".
Again, he sought me out originally due to my work on the Pentagon, but now claims that he never even read it, and that he was "only being nice to me". Another devious player, with a gift for bloviating. But he has yet to come up with anything solid about his claimed month on cleanup at the Pentagon.
Again, he suffered a drug-induced psychotic meltdown when I dared question his story, and he is also in contact with Sandstrom and other questionable characters.
So no doubt the slander is flying thick and fast behind my back.
You have provided me with a substantial reading list which I shall delve into.
x150 Maxwell C. Bridges : a bit thick, bloated with his own conceit, and ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in the truth movement
2023-09-26
Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, I must caution you [for your sanity] to temper your exploration of exchanges preserved on my website that I've had with others, because when I was dealing with them on T&S or Facebook, it was for me maybe one to a handful of comments a day that I was composing. To read them all at once fire-hose style?!! Woe unto you!
Comparing notes with you is interesting, particularly Mr. Ruff. You call him "McKee's Rottweiler." After Mr. McKee order HR not to engage me, Mr. Ruff also mostly ignored me.
My substantiated opinion of Mr. Ruff is: "boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite." I can see where you'd call him: "a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit, and generally ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in the truth movement."
Agreed: "I can see the merit in many of Judy Wood's questions, if not all of her answers. Her attackers deal only with replacing selected lines of her theories with their own hobby horses, without addressing the many conundrums that remain."
Your participation as "Ruby Gray" either was after my time (2014), or not on my hobby-horse topics.
You wrote: "Eric Sandstrom is a viper. Mentally unhinged and a loose cannon."
He's a Christian Nazi. It's fun to poke holes into Jesus and Christianity to drive him nuts. I don't know what his thing is in life, and 9/11. I limit my engagement. Through messenger, he's accused me of nefarious things with McKee.
Don't know Adam Eisenberg.
//
x152 Lorraine Clarke : according to him, I am a fake truther
2023-09-26
Hi! Yes, I was a latecomer to 9/11, being an Australian much less exposed to it. Unfortunately I missed the heydays of debating forums when intelligent, educated people used to share research and evidence.
Ruff has ridiculed me purely on the basis that I did not start sooner, therefore according to him, I am a fake truther.
Adam Eisenberg was (so his story goes) an infantryman in one of 2 units on duty for 1 month in 12 hour shifts, cleaning up inside the Pentagon.
He later worked in a job dealing with aircraft parts.
3 years ago he was unknown. He messaged me, wanting to talk about his experience there. Somehow we lost touch.
Then about 18 months ago he had done a talk show interview, claiming that when he worked in the Pentagon, he never saw any plane parts.
He is a gifted spruiker, and somehow manages to fill an hour or so with his testimony, while never actually disclosing anything substantial. He has done numerous talk shows now. You can find them on Rumble etc.
He is allegedly writing a book on this.
I was once included in his circle of researchers and interested parties, and he was constantly messaging or calling, promising to do a big reveal, and make huge waves.
Early this year he dumped his girlfriend and son, and announced on Facebook that he recommended to all his friends that they buy up all the recreational drugs they could afford, and spend a month or more lazing about a Florida beach, as he intended to.
He then bombarded FB with pics of him on said beach, blonde bikini clad bimbo draped over him.
I was so sick of waiting all this time for him to come good on his hype, and hinted that I was not impressed with his behaviour.
He totally lost it, and became very abusive. There are still numerous voice messages that I've never bothered opening. He said he is going to "expose" me, that he considers me worse than Chandler, and I'm going to rate a chapter in his book. Then he blocked me, so who knows what he is telling people.
I know that he contacted Eric Sandstrom, is in touch with McKee and Ruff, also Aldo Marquis. They seen to have become even more rabidly aggressive to me lately.
No matter. I do have some highly valued friends whose opinions and research I respect, as they do mine.
I had a browse through your archive today. Very interesting that your different approach has received the identical response from Ruff as mine has, years later.
"I've analysed your work and debunked it and I'm not going to waste any more of my precious time on it."
Basically that says he hasn't read it, doesn't intend to, and doesn't have the knowledge to refute anything. What a fraud.
Don't worry, I'm not likely to OD on reading all that. The sheer weight of semantic waffle would do my head in.
This is what I have been trying to get through to the CIT groupies. They say nothing original. They do no research. They do not address specifics of the evidence.
They waste their lives exchanging insults.
This is why I said I reluctantly have to agree with Chandler on this one thing - that McKee has never done anything at all, except attack people with a different opinion from his.
I note that McKee has just posted a self-righteous comment about how Truthers should not engage in censorship.
Ha.
Please do not call Sandstrom a Christian.
He is just a psychopath.
x154 Maxwell C. Bridges : McKee, Ruff, and Rogue were individuals
2023-09-26
Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, If I had not known of Mr. Adam Ruff for many years and seen "news" videos with chubby Mr. Ruff on his "Unspunnews" before it cratered, I would be closing the sockpuppet circuit between him and Mr. McKee for circumstantial reasons. BUT I'M NOT. And I'm not even completely positive that Mr. Ruff had his hand up the sockpuppet Mr. Rogue, mostly because Mr. Rogue was clever, articulate, but very spiteful, while Mr. Ruff is, as you wrote, "a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit."
Whereas Mr. Rogue almost pulled off the A.Wright sockpuppet as a weak foil to gain 9/11 Truther-cred, (a) Mr. Rogue was much worse at his other sockpuppets and their twitter-length meaningless back-slapping, and (b) thick Mr. Ruff can barely pull-off his own persona and gets caught in boastful lies "I've got Woodsian Debunkary like nobody else, and nukes, too."
I'm left with the sad conclusion: McKee, Ruff, and Rogue were individuals, but A.Wright was one of Rogue's sockpuppets, and may have had others like TamborineMan.
x156 Maxwell C. Bridges : "these guys had an agenda orthogonal to truth."
2023-09-26
Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, My super-powers of being naive and trusting are meeting their match with Mr. McKee. Whether or not valid, I held him in high esteem as an impartial host for (deviant) 9/11 discussions. He'd write an article and might acknowledge a comment or two, but once discussion threats started if he wasn't otherwise involved, the discussions evolved and took their natural course.
But when HybridRogue1 was discredited severely, when thick Mr. Ruff walked eyes-wide-open into the same discrediting trap, the lessons Mr. McKee learned were not: "these guys had an agenda orthogonal to truth." The lessons learned were to not host discussions where certain AE9/11Truth premises as collateral get discredited, along with many who were once their champions. Too much of a nuclear crater, I guess.
The krytonite of my super-powers is: "until given reason not to be" (trusting).
That's kind of where Mr. McKee is now.
//
x158 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Ruff. "McKee's Rottweiler."
2023-09-
Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, I must caution you [for your sanity] to temper your exploration of exchanges preserved on my website that I've had with others, because when I was dealing with them on T&S or Facebook, it was for me maybe one to a handful of comments a day that I was composing. To read them all at once fire-hose style?!! Woe unto you!
Comparing notes with you is interesting, particularly Mr. Ruff. You call him "McKee's Rottweiler." After Mr. McKee order HR not to engage me, Mr. Ruff also mostly ignored me.
My substantiated opinion of Mr. Ruff is: "boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite." I can see where you'd call him: "a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit, and generally ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in the truth movement."
Agreed: "I can see the merit in many of Judy Wood's questions, if not all of her answers. Her attackers deal only with replacing selected lines of her theories with their own hobby horses, without addressing the many conundrums that remain."
Your participation as "Ruby Gray" either was after my time (2014), or not on my hobby-horse topics.
You wrote: "Eric Sandstrom is a viper. Mentally unhinged and a loose cannon."
He's a Christian Nazi. It's fun to poke holes into Jesus and Christianity to drive him nuts. I don't know what his thing is in life, and 9/11. I limit my engagement. Through messenger, he's accused me of nefarious things with McKee.
Don't know Adam Eisenberg.
//
Part 10: Linking Pentagon with a different Hobby Horse
x160 Maxwell C. Bridges : first two bullet points are grossly in error and non-compliant with physics
2023-09-27
Shame on you, Mr. Craig McKee! The meme needs to be fixed post-haste, because your first two bullet points are grossly in error and non-compliant with physics.
Bullet 1: It is a completely false notion to expect any large pieces of aircraft outside the building after the alleged high-velocity crash. Your physics thinking is low-velocity, where energies aren't sufficient to shatter, and pieces are large cohesive wholes. This was high-velocity, high energy. The same proofs that disprove NPT@WTC disprove the assertion that the Pentagon would have any large pieces of aircraft (such as wings, tail). Refer also to Sandia F4 and Mythbuster Rocket Sled.
Bullet 2: Theoretically (if we assume an alleged aircraft), the wings would have shattered; there is no expectation of the tips of wings creating a hole the full width of the aircraft, although they'd leave a mark (as at the WTC where they left an outline where the wings removed the aluminum cladding). If the wing tips weren't clipped off by the light poles. As at the WTC, the fuselage and the wings up to the engine would have plowed a hole (but smaller than size of plane) through which the tail section would pass. Yes, the upper spine of the tail ought to have left a mark on the face of the building, but neither it or the other portions of the tail.
//
x162 Craig McKee : hook me into linking the Pentagon with your "hobby horse"
2023-09-27
Maxwell Bridges I think you've finally revealed yourself. Have you been pretending to oppose the disinformation of people like Coste and Chandler just to hook me into linking the Pentagon with your "hobby horse"? It sure sounds like it based on your comment just above. I'm not going to waste as much time as you would like me to arguing with you about the tail section, a significant portion of which would obviously have been left on the lawn. My first two bullet points are questions, and therefore cannot be "errors." And I will not jump "post-haste" to obey your command. Why don't you find an audience of people who want to talk about what you want to talk about and stop trying to play me?
x164 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mistake or Easter Egg that the plane didn't fly the path of the light poles?
2023-09-27
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, your panties seem to be in a wad because I pointed out legitimate weaknesses in your malframed questions to Mr. Chandler about the alleged Pentagon plane.
*John Belushi voice* Well, E.X.C.U.S.E--M.E for trying to warn you about the defect that physics teacher Chandler will straw-man beat down and use to make you look like a science-challenged fool who, neither in high school or college, had any course work in basic physics.
Summation: From a physics perspective and the energy involved (velocities two orders of magnitude greater than parking lot fender benders wing/light-pole impacts that put deep gashes in the wing, of which you have images and memes), THERE IS NO EXPECTATION FOR there to be any LARGE PIECES OF WRECKAGE outside the Pentagon, because the impact shatters the wings leaving no cohesive whole (or partial) wing to see, including the upper fin of the tail). Assuming an aircraft, once the wall was breached by a shattering and crumpling leading fuselage, through that plowed path would flow the rest of the fuselage and tail (in a situation similar to the towers).
But this ASSUMES that the high-velocity plane made it through the gauntlet of the light poles without leaving fragments of wings or aircraft and (soon) ignited fuel all over the lawn.
The physics to use against Chandler/Coste and the alleged Pentagon aircraft impact is the high-velocity wings-versus-light-poles. [Images of low-velocity impacts do have some relevance, like to show low-velocity energy is sufficient to slash the materials of aircraft wings. Sandia F4 and Mythbuster Rock Sled videos are helpful to grasp shattering impacts.]
Your premise (that I agree with) is they staged the fly-over plane and the light poles (and other things). [Mistake or Easter Egg that the plane didn't fly the path of the light poles?] They knew light pole damage would give "direction" and "cause" to the aircraft ruse, certainly for science-challenged rubes.
However, the premise (OCT or cabal) of a real aircraft to be physics-compliant requires more-so-than-ever that the light poles be staged, because otherwise the high-velocity wing/light-poles shattering would foul the precision strike needed (and targeted damage observed).
With or without a real aircraft, the light poles had to be staged, indicating fore-knowledge and complicity.
//
x166 Maxwell C. Bridges : FOR YEARS I have been trying to "hook you (up)" or "saddle you up" into riding my hobby-horse
2023-09-27
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, When you were getting started with your 9/11 blog(s), and me with mine over a decade ago, I told you that our purposes and aims, aside from striving towards Truth, were different.
You know the Bruce Wayne to my Batman, and that the responsibilities of my humble Wayne Manor made me unlikely for the limelight of running a broad-ranging 9/11 blog, attending 9/11 conferences, being a celebrity on conspiracy radio or pod-casts, protesting on street corners, working for AE9/11Truth, etc.
So whereas you took a broad-approach, I did deep-dives into specific rabbit-holes that you could not, and rode those hobby-horses until, all but one, they died from the weight of their purposeful errors when their deceit was discovered, catalogued, and re-promoted as great examples of disinformation (and what made it so.)
Just because I use a Batman to participate on the internet, it does not mean that I'm pretending or less-sincere. I've got legacy that shows evolution in thought and understanding. The OCD collection of my words documents my sincerity in shopping my FGNW hobby-horse -- last one still alive -- to the various corners of the internet (and Facebook) for the expressed purpose of getting it debunked [euthanized], or vetted.
You ask me: "Have you been pretending to oppose the disinformation of people like Coste and Chandler just to hook me into linking the Pentagon with your 'hobby horse'?"
It should be embarrassing for you that AFTER LITERALLY YEARS of me BEGGING you to objectively CONSIDER my FGNW hobby-horse, you out yourself as never having read it! Because if you had read it, you'd see where I've pointed out the errors/disinformation from Coste/Chandler from a completely different direction than your Pentagon hobby-horse.
You accuse me of pretending. El-oh-el.
Was that a projecting slip of the tongue, Mr. McKee? Have you been "pretending" to be "the" 9/11 Journalist-extraordinaire?
In riding my 9/11 hobby-horse around, the black-hole treatment to nuclear 9/11 topics has been pretty consistent. [It was the reason 9/11 blogger was "nuked" into nothingness. They couldn't contain the number of objective, open-minded participants who legitimately questioned nuclear use.]
Yes, Mr. McKee, literally FOR YEARS I have been trying to "hook you (up)" or "saddle you up" into riding my hobby-horse: just once around my off-line corral and identify its typos, at the very least. Black-hole style, you couldn't be bothered; you couldn't help out another brother in 9/11 Truth using your writing/editing skills to improve his work (or identify why it belongs in the trash.)
Open-minded? Objective? ^^^ THAT black-hole action above shows that maybe YOU were pretending.
And let's explore what "hooking you" on my FGNW really means.
- You aren't required to agree with FGNW. You could base your article debunking FGNW. [Although given my debating talents, you know I'd be a formidable discussion opponent. Franklin-Jefferson?]
- You aren't required to argue one side or the other either in the article or discussion.
- The low-bar for hooking your involvement was: hosting the discussion on your world-famous 9/11 blog(s) and moderating the subsequent lively discussion. [Because it won't be just the already-discredited HybridRogue's and Adam Ruff's rushing and shooting-from-the-hip to try to deep-six it, while also spamming back-channel your email. They'll be a whole new caste of agents and ChatGPT bots spamming the threads with twitter-length shallowness.]
Once the corral for my FGNW hobby-horse is built [with or without my labor or materials that I make available] on your plantation of 9/11 journalism truth and excellence, it would be my task to defend it.
All my hobby-horse really needs is a more public corral to run around in, where it will easily buck-off the disinformation agents and put hoof-prints in the asses of their disinformation.
I've made a lot of hay over the years tearing apart 9/11 disinformation section-by-section in the spirit of our great patron saint of 9/11, Dr. David Griffin.
That kind of becomes the gold-standard for how my FGNW premise should be treated.
Remember: this is literally and figurative nuclear.
If you build the corral, it will nuclear-energize the 9/11 Truth Movement, and thereafter the awareness of public at large WHICHEVER way the discussion goes (a) my hobby-horse's legitimate slaughter, or (b) my hobby-horse's legitimacy!
Debunked or vetted, this effort is important to Truth, the world, and your reputation.
And you'll be "the host with the most" who got it done! You'll be the persistent journalist who got to the bottom of this one rabbit-hole; you'll be the one who goes on both social media tours and corporate media tours. [Like Dr. Fetzer before us who showed us how to monetize conspiracy theory in retirement, this could be how you supplement yours.]
Full disclosure: Hosting is the easy part; moderating the discussion isn't. Moderating won't be without cost (time, effort, others' ire.)
Right now, though, you continue your slow-walking, stone-walling, and black-holing trend to what for you should be a BLOCK-BUSTER, MEDIA-BREAKING, CAREER-BOOSTING endeavor (whichever way it goes).
Now with quite literally YEARS of being on your radar festering, your Achille's Heel is this FGNW hobby-horse and how you treat it.
//
x168 Pete Davenport : A complete waste of time, Mad Max is
2023-09-27
Craig McKee Maxwell Bridges is our commander in brief, and we must follow ALL his directions, post hate...
LOL
Plenty of absurd comparisons and statements in the latest round(s).
A complete waste of time, Mad Max is.
Citing the Mythbusters now, looks good on you MM, "Take that!".
And there's a few of us here that could leave a rather good "boot-print" on your lying ass, in a debate about the pentagon.
Of COURSE no jet plane, fighter or not, is going to penetrate, what was it, a 3 foot thick wall of reinforced concrete ~ We're talking about a specific situation here - a supposed 757 hitting a specific area of the pentagon.
ALL good bullet points / Q'ss / observations, Craig.
And yes, it's pants-down time for you, Mad Max. You truly have exposed yourself. 🤓📅🪬🪠ðŸ´â€â˜ ï¸
May be an image of 1 person
x170 Pete Davenport : Complete goofiness, once again
2023-09-27
Maxwell Bridges Complete goofiness, once again. I read the whole thing, MM, only because it's 3 in the morning LOL
And I can also say when I used boot-print on your ass in another comment earlier, I hadn't read your hoofprint remark. Synchronicity.… See more
May be pop art of 1 person and eyewear
x172 Uno Raza : never seen the results of a plane crash!
2023-09-27
Maxwell Bridges ROTFL!!! I'm guessing you've never seen the results of a plane crash! Clue: lots of big parts!
2023-09-27
Maxwell Bridges It was Steve Martin who the "Excuse me" thing
x176 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ray Charles great "excuse me" with John Belushi
2023-09-27
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee *Steve Martin voice* Well, Ex-CUSE ME for being so factually wrong on 30+ year-old SNL trivia! I stand corrected. Although Ray Charles did have a great "excuse me" line in a scene with John Belushi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK33V7FGjd8
//
x178 Maxwell C. Bridges : at the peril of your own understanding of high-velocity physics
2023-09-27
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, There is no need for expressing your desire to execute physical violence "boot-print on (my) lying ass". Almost as bad as your violent thoughts towards me, I notice that you quoted me zero times and put in zero effort to identify for the lurker-audience what I allegedly lied about.
Worst of all, you seem to want to debate me on the Pentagon, when we're on the same side in debunking an alleged 757, only I do it first with light poles.
It's not a debate if we're saying "I agree", "yes, you're right", "no issue with that", "good job of summarizing some of my points in your efforts"...
For these painful reasons, I have no desire to debate you on the Pentagon.
You mock the Mythbuster Rocket-sled videos that you have never seen at the peril of your own lack of understanding of high-velocity physics. Seek them out, at 3 in the morning, and fast forward to observing the energy from the high-velocity SHATTER materials. This is a very important concept on 9/11, at the Pentagon with both light poles and re-inforced walls and at the WTC (debunking NPT@WTC claims).
//
x180 Maxwell C. Bridges : a precision missile would take away all risks associated with a real aircraft
2023-09-27
Dear Mr. Uno Raza, You are missing some clarifications when you wrote: ".. the results of a plane crash! Clue: lots of big parts!"
The missing clarifications begins with the velocities at the time of crash and impact angle. For example, planes taking off or landing have lower velocities, and this plays a major physics role in how big the pieces are. Planes taking off and landing have a flight vector (intended to be) parallel to the ground, as opposed to a flight vector that is orthogonal to what it impacted (e.g., side of mountain, side of building). High-velocity crashes magnifies exponentially the energy available to shatter materials. [This is the take-away lesson from both the Sandia F4 and the Mythbuster rocket-sled videos.]
Another missing clarification is where the crash happened. Conveniently three of four 9/11 crash managed to embed themselves in building, and the fourth in an old mine, thus allegedly hiding the evidence.
FTR, I'm not OCT at the Pentagon; I believe they staged it.
Assuming a real plane at the Pentagon for a brief moment, I believe -- to your point -- we would have observed large pieces of the wings on the Pentagon lawn from having clipped the light poles and been sheered off, which would not have made the rest of the fuselage not precisely controllable thereby scraping and breaking fuselage along the lawn and into construction trailers then smacking the wall. Most important of all, there would be luggage and content of luggage strewn about, and a lot more seats.
My point in this discussion was that OCT suggests the Pentagon plane clipped the light poles and was in tact when it hit the side of the building. Using their logic and given the (achieved) goal of wiping out ONI at the Pentagon, the light poles were a known risk factor that would foul the precision of the plane, and therefore had to be staged. They probably discovered other risk factors with a real plane, like maybe not being able to pierce the re-enforced Pentagon walls and executing the damage required by the agenda (e.g., shutting down ONI investigation). So, "in for a penny, in for a pound", if they're gonna stage the light poles, why not stage the fly-over plane (mistake or Easter Egg that it flew the wrong vector?)
Related off-track considerations.
Construction sites are typically organized with rows and aisles to be able to get at materials stacked and stored there with forklifts and other vehicles. Vehicles and trailers would be parked in an orderly fashion with respect to one another, but also probably to the building itself.
In the aftermath of the Pentagon (alleged) plane, one of the construction trailers that was torched was sitting at an angle with respect to the other trailers, the site organization, the Pentagon, etc. but the angle was consistent with the (alleged) flight path through the light poles.
Rather than releasing any of the 80+ confiscated surveillance videos, at one point an animation of the Pentagon plane was created that made light-hearted mention of hitting light poles and emphasized a wing allegedly hitting the construction trailer, knocking it out of parking alignment with others, and knocking it in alignment with the flight path.
My wild-ass speculation is that the alignment of the construction trailer to match the alleged flight path was done as part of the light pole staging. That construction trailer was the launching point for a point-blank missile strike which gave directional damage to the building that they falsely attributed to a plane. The construction trailer was torched by the exhaust of missile igniting and getting up to speed.
Such a precision missile would take away all risks associated with a real aircraft, such as not being able to precisely take out the ONI objective.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment