by Maxwell C. Bridges
2023-10-01
This article spins a few times on the carousel called "no plane theory at the World Trace Center" (NPT@WTC), that I first took serious with September Clues.
Expand All Parts / Hide All Parts
Expand All Sections / Hide All Sections
Previous carousel spins:
- Round 1 (2014-03): NPT with Norma Rae and FB "All Theories Welcome"
- Round 2 (2015-01: NPT with Rosalee Grable
- Round 3 (2016-01): NPT with Shiela Casey
- Round 4 (2016-06): NPT with Dr. James Fetzer
- Round 5 (2019-05): NPT with Art Olivier, Thomas Digan
- Round 6 (2019-12): NPT with Chukwudi Onugha
- Round 7 (2020-01): NPT with Michael Rose
In this volume:
- Round 8 (2022-02): NPT Discussions with Andy Christensen, David Tame, Winston Smith, Darris Mishler, Michael W. Lurie, Malcolm Sturrock, Tim Hussey
- Round 9 (2022-05): NPT Discussions with Max Pruss
- Round 10 (2022-08): NPT Discussions with Daniel M. Plesse, Mike Johnson, Lisa Brooks, Jerome Grogan, Edward Irwin, Cole Anderson, Noel Kreutzmann
Part 1: Round 8 NPT Discussions with Andy Christensen, David Tame, Winston Smith, Darris Mishler, Michael W. Lurie, Malcolm Sturrock, Tim Hussey
x2 David Tame : pre-planted incendiary substance acting like a propellant
2022-02-09
2022-02-06
A pre-planted incendiary substance, part of controlled demolition, which here is acting like a propellant, so that portion of the blown-up building is actually being propelled downward faster than it would fall from normal gravity. A lot of this is going on in the photo, and in all such photos, and videos, from 9/11. That's not a 'falling' building, but very clearly a building being blown up under pre-planted controlled demolition.
The nonsensical official story is a cover-up. So who *really* did it?
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : coincidentally supporting unwittingly my deviant FGNW premise
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. David Tame, we agree in the nonsensical official story as a lame-ass cover-up. And I regret playing right into the role of splitting this 9/11 Truth kum-by-ya fellowship by arguing about a detail.
It was not pre-planted incendiary. Don't feel bad. You've been duped by some of the best disinformation in the business, that you and nearly the entirety of AE9/11Truth have been suckered by the NT limited hang-out.
Rather than repeating myself, I'll point you to another top-level comment from me that goes into my FGNW theory. Upon request, I can debunk NT as the primary mechanism of destruction, and have a section of a blog posting that already has it written up.
Spoiler: high school math and chemistry debunk NT, as do the reports on the dust, while coincidentally supporting unwittingly my deviant FGNW premise.
To your question. Capitalists did 9/11. Zionists in high places, plus boots to the ground Mossad in places.
//
x6 David Tame : I agree on who done it
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges I agree on who done it. As in who most were at the very top, and some important boots on the ground.
x8 Andy Christensen : and no planes?
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges ...and no planes...?
x10 Maxwell C. Bridges : planes at the WTC were involved
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, planes at the WTC were involved, and lots of evidence was available to this fact before either tower came down. The whole disinformation campaign NPT@WTC was spun up when too many questions about missing planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville kept getting asked. //
x12 Andy Christensen : zero debris at any and all points of impact
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges sorry. Proof is there for anyone to see...
There is zero debris at any and all points of impact...impossible the have been a crash. But, please, go ahead and give be your best explanation as to why that is true or even possible.
Andy Christensen
And it was not spun up because of that. That is nothing more than an assumption.
x14 Maxwell C. Bridges : photographs of aircraft debris at the towers
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You are factually wrong regarding airplane debris at the towers.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in it.
This wall assembly in the street also destroys arguments about crash physics. The plane plowed through one wall and the core area, and it still had enough energy to several the bolts of a wall assembly on the back-side and knock it to the street. If nothing else, this should be saying how weak those connection bolts were. Therefore, any damage on the front-side that can be attributed to entire wall assemblies being pushed about reduces total energy requirement and leaves energy available to bend or break box columns of wall assemblies elsewhere.
I also have it written up with images in the very last section of the re-purposed page [that documents some of my many discussions with no-planers.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
CRYPTOME.ORG
x16 Andy Christensen : neglect my argument and create their own instead
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges precisely...not one of those reference anything that a have said...you did read what I said, right? Amazing how many neglect my argument and create their own instead
x18 Maxwell C. Bridges : spare you the embarrassment for being wrong owing to being duped by a very crafty disinformation campaign
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You made the comment "zero debris at any and all points of impact." So? When the physics of both the towers and planes is described properly, why would there be aircraft debris left at the entrance hole?
The wall assemblies had built in failure points: namely, the bolts that connected wall assemblies to one another. If these bolts fail because they were severed [which takes energy, but not massive amounts] the wall assembly could then be plowed out of the way.
Once penetration happened, what structural content was there to resist the incoming plane? The concrete floors had 12 feet of air in between, and office content not fixed to anything would not necessarily have stopped heavy items from the plane, like wheel assemblies and engines, which both the WTC-1 backside punch out and the engine rocketing to Church and Murray (after bouncing off a roof) adequately prove.
I was duped by NPT for a few years, but I kept both my eyes and mind open for alternative, more physics compliant explanations. I had to recant my NPT views particularly after I saw the pictures of the wheel assemblies.
Only because I was duped by NPT@WTC did I ever step up to discuss the matter with other no-planers. As a friend in 9/11 Truth, I wanted to spare them the embarrassment for being wrong owing to being duped by a very crafty disinformation campaign. Because I'm lazy, I saved the discussions. I'll be happy to cut-and-paste from those discussions and disprove anything you'd want to bring up to support your NPT@WTC argument, but you can jump the gun and see what ammo I have diligently stored towards truth. Save ourselves some time and effort.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
//
NPT and Internet Bots
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x20 Andy Christensen : 2,000,000 parts simply disappear
2022-02-09
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges why? Because every crash in aviation history did.
What makes you think that 2,000,000 parts simply disappear... impossible.
Not one single, isolated, individual, sole, lone piece of aircraft at either site.
But that's ok. I know how belief overwhelms evidence
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges wingtip to wingtip, nothing of any aircraft exists. Zippo.
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges but please share what you've discovered
x22 Maxwell C. Bridges : your faulty premise is no structure or building content sufficient to keep the mass of the airplane right at the entrance hole
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, you are making daft comments. You complained about me allegedly not reading your words, yet I quoted you back in a comment that was in the process of being finished before you hurriedly posted another. Now I get to fire that complaint right back at you, because you clearly haven't visited the blog entry the debunks several NPTers.
You cannot compare 9/11 to "every crash in aviation history" for many reasons, including (a) the plane didn't impact the ground, (b) the planes impacted hollow buildings, (c) the event involved nuclear components that destroyed remnants of the plane left in the building, just as they dustified the concrete, turned thin metal into tiny iron spheres, and created arches/sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies.
Yes, I think FGNW can disappear 2,000,000 parts.
However, it didn't. Plenty of parts remained.
The point you miss is that aircraft debris surrounded the towers and was recognized and identified as such by arriving first responders. MORE IMPORTANTLY, you have yet to address the evidence of the wheel assemblies, with my favorite being the tire embedded between two hollow box columns that was part of a wall assembly that got ripped out of the back side of WTC-1, fell into a neighboring parking lot, and was photographed from several angles before either tower came down. DON'T IGNORE THIS EVIDENCE. ADDRESS IT, OR STFU.
Shit, the comment with links was already made that debunks your later comment above: "Not one single, isolated, individual, sole, lone piece of aircraft at either site." Is 10 enough? 10 pieces of wheel assemblies, one even found in a hot-tub in a neighboring building.
BTW, the argument here is that real planes were involved at the WTC. (And why not? They needed a spectacle for the public, and couldn't just raze a building without this pretext.) It is a completely different argument to say that the "real planes were the alleged commercial aircraft," which is ~not~ my argument at all. In fact, the engine from a different aircraft and lack of effort to serial-number match engine/wheel assemblies to the alleged commercial aircraft already expose that lie and cover-up.
Now, regarding your wing-tip to wing-tip comment. Again, the physics of both the towers and the aircraft NEEDS TO BE DESCRIBED PROPERLY. Specifically, the wall assemblies had aluminum cladding on the outside. Wing-tip to wing-tip, this cladding was damaged and gives us from a distance, from disinfo sources, a false impression of a cartoon outline and full wingtip-to-wingtip penetration.
But no, if you look closely, the outline is only on the aluminum cladding. The penetrating damage to the actual wall assemblies stops just outside the engines on both sides. (In other words, the fuselage and engines were sufficient in mass and structure to plow their way into the building and keep going.)
Now as far as the wings and their tips go, here is where the equation for energy comes in that uses a velocity squared term. High velocity impacts are much different than low-velocity impacts. The main difference is that the energy of the impact is sufficiently high to shatter materials (e.g., light wing materials, aluminum cladding) but not others (e.g., the wall assemblies at the wing-tips.) [Low velocity crashes, materials maybe deform, maybe break, and if plastic, shatter. We're talking high-velocity with enough energy to shatter aluminum and sheet metal of plane wings.]
SHATTER is the proper word, because when first responders arrived, they saw lots of identifiable small fragments from the aircraft littering the plaza all around the towers.
Study the pictures, and you will know what I'm saying is true, and is physics compliant.
The disinformation campaign purposely described both the towers and the aircraft improperly. NPTers make the claim that "the tail entered the towers in the same number of frames as it took to go through thin air." First of all, owing to the slow video frame rate of the cameras compared to the high speed event, while this statement is true, it masks the fact that deceleration happened. (In other word, what range of velocities will allow an aircraft to travel its length in, say, four frames.) Secondly, I've already mentioned the built-in failure points (bolts) and that once penetration has succeeded, not much building structure or content were present (if not going through the core area) to resist further penetration. And as is observed by the evidence YOU HAVEN'T CONSIDERED YET, a wheel assembly had enough energy after penetration to severe the bolts of a back-side wall assembly and send it to the ground. Likewise, an engine rocketed out of a corner window and flew a couple football fields to bounce off of a building (whose roof damage was noted and would have been hard to fake) before landing on the street at Church and Murray. IF THEY WERE GOING TO PLANT THAT ENGINE, THEY WOULD HAVE AT LEAST CHOSEN THE RIGHT MODEL FOR THE AIRCRAFT, and how in the hell could they have faked the roof damage?
The point is, there was no structure or building content sufficient to keep the mass of the airplane right at the entrance hole, which is your faulty premise.
//
x24 Andy Christensen : Plane parts cannot disintegrate
2022-02-09
Andy Christensen
Not one piece of evidence of any aircraft impacted here. Wings had 3052sqft of aluminum. That's the area of a Ranch three-bedroom house with a two-car attached garage....aluminum cannot simple shatter away.
May be an image of outdoors
Andy Christensen
The nine columns to the extreme left are all damaged but not penetrated.
All alleged films shows no 'blowback' as the plane seamlessly melted in the building. The columns are not peetrated, nothing bounced back and no debris is wedged, jammed, dangled, impacted, wrapped, hung, spiked or smashed. Zero...not one piece of debris.
All other columns at both sites (you know what I mean) can be described similarly as no debris.
No photo description available.
Andy Christensen
No debris anywhere
No photo description available.
Andy Christensen
Plane parts cannot disintegrate
No photo description available.
x26 Maxwell C. Bridges : physics compliant reasons why you don't see any plane parts at the entrance holes
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, If you want to debunk a discussion opponent legitimately, you have to read their arguments and substantiation and address their issues. If you fail to do this and it gets pointed out, it comes back on you personally with a wide assortment of negative adjectives that your purposeful stupid (in)actions validated.
The link to the punch-out site and all of its pictorial evidence of real aircraft, you haven't made peep-one about. That is your target. If you don't address it -- or let it address you and your misconceptions --, you out yourself.
You wrote: "No debris anywhere" and "Plane parts cannot disintegrate."
Here is a recap. Some plane parts are light and flimsy [compared to steel wall assemblies]. When the velocity becomes very large as it was in this case [~500 mph, which is already more 5 times normal autobahn speeds], the velocity-squared term in the energy equation really is sufficient to shatter such parts (e.g., wing materials). And wouldn't you know it, the very pictures that you post show that the wall assemblies suffer less and less damage as you go from about the engines to the wing tips. First responders reported seeing that shredded material on the ground surrounding the towers, and there are videos that also show the shattering and falling of small pieces.
But some plane parts are heavy and solid. When this mass is inserted into that energy equation with the velocity-squared term, the energy is sufficient to sever connecting bolts between wall assemblies, push wall assemblies out of the way, bent hollow box columns of an assembly, and sever similar bolts on the wall assembly of the back side to send it to the street. Similarly, an engine was able to rocket out the corner, fly some distance, bounce off a roof, and land under scaffolding on the street.
The point is that there are physics compliant reasons why you don't see any plane parts at the entrance holes. The parts are either (a) shattered, bounced off, and on the ground (e.g., wings), (b) passed through the structure and accounted for on the street, or (c) lodged within the structure and not visible from the entrance hole, because remember, "once the outer wall was penetrated, only the inner core and the backside wall prevented parts from escaping," but escape some still did and you need to OWN UP TO THAT FACT.
Here. Let me post the link again. Go there. Debunk it.
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
CRYPTOME.ORG
x28 Andy Christensen : Cant have a plane coming out if it never went in.
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges but I did read your argument. And looked at your pictures. But you can't get to second base if you never touch first first.
Cant have a plane coming out if it never went in.
Why is there no air plane in the building.... You see are telling me what you believe happened... I'm not fo that...never really ever do. Nope, I'm telling what DIDN'T happen....and showing you direct evidence which you have yet to disagree with..and your only explanation is impossible. I don't NEED to debunk anything.... I'm telling you no plane hit either one...you can guess what happened after that and believe anything you want.
What makes you think I was trying to debunk anything? Certainly not from what I said.
x30 Maxwell C. Bridges : I'm not trying to get into your panties, sir
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, you joker, you. How funny your statement: "Cant have a plane coming out if it never went in." ???
Even more hilarious was your statement: "but I did read your argument. And looked at your pictures. But you can't get to second base if you never touch first first."
I'm not trying to get into your panties, sir, so let's not talk second or first bases if you can't talk "thoughts" and "impressions" first, honey.
You saw validated pictures of large pieces of aircraft debris that were discovered and photographed immediately after an event that everyone seems to think involved actual aircraft, except you [and other NPTers that get outed as agents].
Whatever theory-du-jour you are peddling about the towers has to address all of the relevant evidence (according to Dr. David Griffin in his fine wisdom.)
Please enlighten me on how those pieces of evidence were created, when, and why. The onus is still on you.
Let this also be a bot test of you. From the punch out website, quote something or link a picture. Optional: because you seem to want to discount the images on that web page, please debunk them or point out their flaws, really exhibit some original thought in your response.
//
x32 Andy Christensen : zero debris at point of impact
2022-02-09
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges
My premise stands
There is zero debris at point of impact.
No one yet has been able to counter that premise. Outside some lunatic explanation with vaporized, disintegrated, atomized, and now for the first time "shattered", no one can explain that fact.
But like I said, keep believe in what you think happened.... I'm telling you what didn't....
There is no debris at point of impact...X 2...
Andy Christensen
Validated by whom...those bringing you the narrative? Of course.
Andy Christensen
How those pieces of evidence got there? How the hell would know.. I don't and neither can you.
Andy Christensen
You ask me to debunk immediately after I said I don't debunk....ugh!
Tou think you know happened when i know i know what didn't.
So, the government had two no plane crashes not four then?
x34 Maxwell C. Bridges : What part of high velocity physics suggests the hole of impact is supposed to have aircraft debris visible?
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, let the record show that in four comments sent in rapid-bot fashion, you did not drag back anything from the website in question. No quotes. No images.
Answer this question in your head: how many years of physics have you had?
Me? 1.5 years in an engineering track, last century, at the university. This sort of stuff was covered in the first 1/4 of the first semester class.
What part of explaining high velocity physics impacts would suggest that the point of impact -- a hole in the side of the building -- is required to have recognizable debris of (a) what penetrated it and/or (b) what was shattered off of it, right there?
Have you seen the F4-Sandia crash video, or MythBusters rocket-sled? The high velocity examples they present don't show pieces of the aircraft / sled at the point of impact.
Your rusty physics education won't let you believe that the copious quantities of air between concrete floors might let the momentum of the penetrating fuselage and engines continue on, unimpeded.
You wrote: "How those pieces of evidence got there? How the hell would know.. I don't and neither can you."
Fail.
You aren't paying attention and are deliberately being a jokester. As if I can't know that the evidence of real aircraft found, say, lodged between two hollow columns of a wall assembly ripped off the back side of WTC-1 didn't come from the same aircraft that eye-witnesses saw and cameras from many different perspectives captured?
Jokester that you are, you aren't willing to follow even your own premise to its logical conclusion. The amount of effort to fake all aspects of WTC aircraft crashes, including "planting 10 instances of large landing gear fragments before either tower came down (say, 45 minutes)" widens the circle of complicit participants greatly and itself would have been noted as it happened, when it would have been much simpler and tighter to use a real aircraft, even if effectively a drone.
In your 4th comment, you wrote: "So, the government had two no plane crashes not four then?"
YES.
They needed real aircraft to be seen and captured on cameras at the WTC as part of the shock-and-awe that complicit corporate media replayed over and over in their fear-mongering to accept war-mongering. However for other reasons, the Pentagon and Shanksville did not involve aircraft. [The real aircraft, if they ever existed, were sent elsewhere and lose-ends dealt-with there.]
So in some disinfo jujitzu, they put a lot of effort into spinning up and maintaining the disinfo premise of "NPT@WTC", precisely because they know it would get debunked, but at the same time smear valid questions into the lack of Pentagon / Shanksvilled aircraft in a guilt by association manner "all you NPTers are the same."
//
x36 Andy Christensen : no debris can be found at point of impact
2022-02-09
Andy Christensen
"As if I can't know that the evidence of real aircraft found, say, lodged between two hollow columns of a wall assembly ripped off the back side of WTC-1 "
But that doesn't counter my premise that no debris can be found at point of impact... Planting evidence on the ground would be required for the hoax to look real...
No debris at any (4) points of impact...
Andy Christensen
As for the alleged civilian videographers...? Professionals set in place. I did research on them and listed them.... Why weren't there 1000s of videos and only a dozen or so...?
Andy Christensen
So if no planes at Shanksville and the P, that would make you a No Planer as well.
x38 Winston Smith : how a 36 foot long very heavy wall assembly is planted?
2022-02-09
Andy Christensen says" Planting evidence on the ground would be required for the hoax to look real..." Please explain how a 36 foot long very heavy wall assembly is planted. And how the pipe that came down with it, whipped across the street and severely damaged a blue truck and scaffolding next to it.
x40 Andy Christensen : I can't say how it did get there
2022-02-09
Winston Smith I am not denying it was lying there and I can't say how it did get there.... Neither can you.
What I can say is there is no evidence of a plane coming through the 'other' side....and, yes, planted evidence is in all false flag/hoax events. Or how the engine goes 25 ft under a scaffold and the Murray Sign conveniently lands right next it., or the landing gear was also under another scaffolding, or landing gear with rope tied around as it ay wedge between two building, or how a plane can crash into a steel building and leave no debris at point of impact.... Lots of mysteries....
May be an image of 1 person and text that says 'Airplane crashed through 3 sections of steel and remains in pristine condition, lands on top of roof and one hour later the Tower Collapses and and building debris wnds up UNDER the airplane debris ~1C C ingiipicon Sure, WHY C The NOT!'
x42 Winston Smith : improbability of planting such a huge piece of debris
2022-02-09
Andy Christensen I'm simply pointing out the improbability of planting such a huge piece of debris on a street so close to the WTC at rush hour. It would require a very large crane and a long ass flatbed truck. Then a crew would have to scatter lots of other stuff all around it. Impossible.
x44 Andy Christensen : Not if it were blown from the building
2022-02-09
Winston Smith Not if it were blown from the building...
I look at four aspects.
Impractical
Improbable
Implausible
Impossible
The first three are possible.
A crash of a full-sized aircraft into a steel building and leaving no debris--and happening twice exactly the same...is which one?
I am not making up scenario of truck dumping off debris, you are...
You are still trying to guess what happened, I'm not doing that....I'm telling you what didn't happen...
x46 Maxwell C. Bridges : more implausible than just sacrificing some real aircraft
2022-02-09
{mcb: This comment got flagged and removed by FB. Your comment goes against our Community Standards on harassment and bullying.}
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I regret to inform you that you are being stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent. Must be some good drugs.
Nothing says "high-as-a-kite" like your lame comment: "I look at four aspects: impractical, improbable, implausible, impossible." Those are not aspects. They are adjectives. And the only thing they apply to is your non-existent explanation, or did I miss it when you coughed up that hairball?
"I'm telling you what didn't happen..." No you aren't. You're just throwing tomatoes. And after you've created doubt or a void, you fill it with nothing. Classic disinformation move.
Here are some improbable and implausible things: that a camera without knowledge of the plane could pan and zoom it into frame and capture its final moments. With advanced knowledge, sure. Further if we turn the coin over to the "September Clues" clever disinfo that you've been smoking where the plane was CGI, why would the camera turn and pan and zoom in on... what? Nothing? That's pretty implausible of your premise, and several orders of magnitude more implausible than just sacrificing some real aircraft.
As is par for your disinfo course, you haven't addressed the question of why you think debris from a high-velocity aircraft would be neatly nestled at the entrance HOLE. You throw out the term "steel building" as if to imply that its entire structure -- outside and in -- were some solid, immovable steel block that would continue to resist a penetrating plane with the same force after the initial wall assembly was breeched.
I've mentioned before that one of the games of disinformation was to improperly describe the physics / structure of both the building and aircraft so as to make false claims. The question remains, once the entrance wall assemblies were breeched, what content or structure would be present to resist the fuselage and engines from penetrating completely with ease? If you are tempted to say "concrete floors and their metal floor pans and trusses", there was 12 feet of literally air between each and how much resistance would that air provide? (One of the building designers in an early video said that the towers would act like a screen with a pencil pushing through it with regards to an aircraft impact. And it did.)
Moreover, there were two different radar systems -- one civilian and one military -- that were within tolerances of one another that documented the incoming aircraft and alerted ground personnel of what was happening, and aligned with the flight path shown in dozens of amateur videos as proven with a 3D rendering of all that showed co-linear flight paths for everything. THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT ANALYSIS -- which along with the airplane debris outside -- convinced me that NPT@WTC was disinformation, and I should change my tune. You see, September Clues made a big deal about how one camera showed the 2nd plane swooping down, another showed it swooping up, and another showed it level, which led to their disinfo premise that all videos were CGI faked. But when overlaid on the 3D rendering, the difference was accounted for by CAMERA PERSPECTIVE to the action, and all depictions of the 2nd plane were co-linear with one another and two sets of radar data.
I don't know what strain you're smoking, but you should refrain from driving automobiles, using heavy equipment, and posting on the internet while under its influence. Geesh.
//
x48 Maxwell C. Bridges : what makes you think large-enough-to-be-seen aircraft fragments would be hanging out at the impact location?
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, some replies to some other comments of yours. You asked: "Why weren't there 1000s of videos and only a dozen or so...?"
First of all, it was not "one dozen" videos, it was more than "four dozen" videos or more. The aforementioned 3D analysis used three dozen of them.
Secondly, what makes you think there would be 1000s of videos? This was the year 2001, and cameras were just starting to be built into mobile phones. I -- a grown-ass adult at the time gainfully employed in high-tech -- didn't even have a cellphone then. Further, why would 1000 of people to recording "smoke from WTC-1" and what clues would they have that they should record a second plane that they didn't even know about?
You wrote: "So if no planes at Shanksville and the P, that would make you a No Planer as well."
This is what the disinfo spreaders want you to do. They don't want you looking at each event separately and deciding what did and did not apply. They want you to assume the same cause-and-effect for everything. And for sure with regards to Shanksville and the Pentagon, if they can get you to say "I'm a no-planer" (for those two instances), then they'll twist that to be "you're a no-planer for all instances", and then debunk the NPT disinfo they spun up on the towers to smear valid NPT elsewhere.
You wrote: "No debris at any (4) points of impact..."
I assume you mean the four alleged aircraft crashes. Valid for Shanksville and the Pentagon. Invalid for the towers. Again because it is very much relevant and key, what makes you think that after an aircraft's fuselage & engines breeched the wall assemblies and penetrated into the building that there would be remnants of the fuselage hanging around at the entrance hole? Or when lighter aircraft materials from the wings got shattered on impact, what makes you think they'd be hanging out at the impact location?
Get some understanding of high-velocity impacts. Refer to the videos of the F4 Sandia crash test or the MythBuster's rocket-sled.
//
x50 Maxwell C. Bridges : takeaway from this is the shattering of materials
2022-02-09
Sandia Test with the F4. Yes, the towers weren't some concrete slab. The takeaway from this is the shattering of materials owing to the energy (velocity-squared term).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ
//
Total Destruction Redux: F4 Phantom vs. Concrete Wall - Additional Camera Angles
YOUTUBE.COM
x52 Maxwell C. Bridges : high velocity adds so much energy, solid materials get shattered
2022-02-09
Myth Buster Rocket Sled. Again, it isn't exactly the 9/11 case, but does show how high velocity adds so much energy, solid materials get shattered.
The reason this (and Sandia F4) aren't totally applicable is that they had solid almost immovable backstops they were launching into.
In the case of the towers, they were not solid. Even the wall assemblies were NOT solid steel. They were three HOLLOW box columns connect together. The thickness of the metal of the sides of the HOLLOW box columns varied depending on where you were measuring it in the towers. (Thicker at lower levels, because it supported more weight.)
One the towers walls were breached, there was not mound of dirt or concrete barrier to prevent further penetration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ
//
Mythbusters - Compact Compact Rocket Sled
YOUTUBE.COM
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : overcoming the deceit you've been duped by with high velocity physics
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges
High velocity physics is your key to overcoming the deceit you've been duped by with the NPT@WTC disinfo.
//
x56 Andy Christensen : impossible for an aircraft to leave zero debris at the point if impact
2022-02-09
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges impossible for an aircraft the size of an airliner to impact the buildings and leave zero (which you've admitted) debris at the point if impact. The F4 exampe is phony as it has no comparison.
But it's important to keep up on the personal attacks as the hallmark of every shill or sheeple...
Hundred of films, uh? Where are they?
Haven't done much in sales, it seems, have you?
Andy Christensen
Allknown ohotographers were professionals and none of the live cameras from msm none showed points of impact.. . CGIed prepared for the event...all they needed was smoke, flames and schills to promote it.
Shalom....
x58 Andy Christensen : not going address the obviousness of impact studies
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges I can see you're not going address the obviousness of impact studies...so I'll let you go on with your narrative support and creative beliefs of 'military remote flying style explosive reenforced wing shattering debris theories.
Shalom
x60 Maxwell C. Bridges : comment goes against our Community Standards on harassment and bullying
2022-02-09
{mcb: 9 hours later "Your comment goes against our Community Standards on harassment and bullying"}
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, it isn't slander or libel when it can be proven true. I called you "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent."
Your last comment begins (sic) "Allknown ohotgraphers" and proves the incoherent claim.
You state that all videos came from professional photographers. Maybe this is true for the "one dozen" videos that you think exist, but not for the two or three dozen videos that your accounting doesn't acknowledge. At least three dozen videos were in the 3D analysis of the flight path. Whatever, you are making the claim that all 9/11 videos came from professionals, so you prove it. Otherwise, I'll put this in your column of being disingenuous.
As for my comment that you are "stupid", unfortunately this has been rather ongoing for you. Let's take the F4 example. It has elements that most definitely apply, because it demonstrates that high velocities have high energies that shatter materials.
Further, it is well to note the differences from the F4 example. The barrier was very much fixed in the Sandia test. But the towers were designed to give way, with the connecting bolts being a built-in mechanism for that purpose. Where the fuselage hit, the wall assemblies were pushed out of the way. Where your stupidity comes in is not recognizing that the mass which pushed wall assemblies in isn't going to hang out right at the entrance hole. No, that mass might just enter complete into the towers and not be seen from a distance.
Other examples of your stupidity include not acknowledging ANYTHING from the Punch-Out website. You can't even provide a logical explanation for the partial tire assembly lodged between 2 of the 3 box columns of a wall assembly knocked out from the back-side of WTC-1 and in the parking lot. No, someone with an agenda for truth would at least come up with: "They got that tire and broken assembly from a jet junk yard, carried it up the elevator, carried a cannon of sorts up the elevator, loosened connecting bolts, and fired the tire from the cannon at the wall assembly at just the right moment to bring it down." What "cannon of sorts" would achieve what logically you should be claiming if your beliefs were true, and not you being either (a) stupid or (b) an agent? No, fool, you can't be claiming "it wasn't mechanism X, yet I have no mechanism Y and have nothing to say about the many pieces of evidence -- like two sets of radar data -- that handily point to mechanism X.
Before this reply could be completed, you added an incoherent and disingenuous comment that went partially as: "an see you're not going address the obviousness of impact studies..."
Impact studies? You mean the very studies you didn't provide and haven't made coherent explanations for? Or do you mean the impact studies that I gave that describe the physical properties of both the towers and the planes properly and offer physics compliant explanations for anomalies of weaker wings shattering and stronger engines and landing gear plowing on through, caught on videos, found where they could be predicted to land [given measurable exit velocity, height, gravity, and vector]? I don't think it is the latter, because you've been too disingenuous to review.
Sorry, Mr. Andy Christensen, but "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent" are now validated character traits for you, and not libel or slander coming from me.
You've heard about cognitive dissonance, right? 9/11 Truthers say all the time that normal people suffer from cognitive dissonance, because it literally gives them headaches to learn how bad their elected government and its agencies and institutions acted on 9/11 and its aftermath.
But did you know that sometimes 9/11 Truthers sometimes suffer from cognitive dissonance to a greater measure [thank you for outing yourself in this regard.] 9/11 Truthers know that what they're told is a lie from the authorities, but then drop their guard and don't question what "authorities in the 9/11 Truth Movement" tells them. Your reasoning has been captured by NPT falsehoods, because they were a convenient explanation to fill the void of blatant OCT lies. Except that you didn't keep questioning, and didn't question that.
NT is another example of cognitive dissonance in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It can be really hard to get 9/11 Truthers to budge from this limited hang-out that does conveniently address some anomalies. Alas, NT doesn't address them all, and doesn't go the distance that high school math and chemistry calculate for it. They don't want to admit doubt in their NT stance, because that would make their efforts to champion it for (rounded up) two decades "a monumental waste of time" and disinformation [because 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components, which is why they've spun up so much crazy disinformation, spun up NT, ...]
I've documented (just) seven Facebook rounds of trying to teach 9/11 Truthers about the errors in the NPT@WTC premise.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
Round 7 with Mr. Michael Rose was one of the better ones, but if you, Mr. Andy Christensen, were not so proven "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent", you would have gone and researched my performance, if for nothing else, to see how all of the pillars-of-NPT beliefs were knocked out from underneath those hapless debate opponents and their arguments destroyed. Think of it as opposition research that even sports teams perform to prepare for games against their competitors.
If you were "smart" and not proven "stupid", you would have seen NPT points supposedly destroyed and would leap-frog into attacking the argument that destroyed the NPT point LEGITIMATELY. That's how debate and discussion is supposed to work. Back and forth. Many of those debate opponents were agents and very limited, and failed in countering what destroyed pillars of their beliefs.
I'm a fair and square guy. Show some earnestness and intelligence in researching my points and acknowledging them as anomalies needing to be addressed [even if you can't], I'll recant my assessment of you and apologize for having hurt your feelings.
//
NPT and Internet Bots
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x62 Maxwell C. Bridges : it isn't slander or libel when it can be proven true
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, it isn't slander or libel when it can be proven true. I called you "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent."
x64 Andy Christensen : none of that explains....No Debris at Point of Impact
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges thanks but none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact.
x66 Maxwell C. Bridges : you reek like "bot" (and Mossad.)
2022-02-09
{mcb: Messaged to Andy Christensen.}
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Oh dear me, oh myyy! It seems now two of my comments to you have been flagged as bullying and put me into the FB penalty box for a few days. They've been doing retro-things and accumulating things in their database about me.
Normally, I guess I would apologize at this juncture.
Except that I don't think an apology would do anything for you, or alleviate any negative feelings. Why? Because you reek like "bot" (and Mossad.)
*Wah!* Now my feelings are hurt, because my comments got reported. Just kidding, no.
*Wah!* My feelings got hurt, because your bot algorithms restart a spin on a carousel called "No Debris at Point of Impact".
The physics of high velocities ought to remove any expectation of recognizable aircraft parts hanging out right at the plowed hole created by the fuselage and engines, not helped by all cameras being quite some distance away and examined well beyond their pixelation allows.
[In the rocket sled and F4 Sandia videos, what debris was left hanging out right at the impact point and, to be fair, is recognizable as what they once were by cameras positioned some distance away?]
Anything else I'd write to address your misconceptions and unrealistic expectations is already present in the thread, minus the bullying.
With your GOTO statement to re-launch the "No Debris at Point of Impact" carousel into another spin, I step off. Been there, done that.
With the censored pieces included, this all makes for a tidy end to a potential round 8 of "NPT and Internet Bots", when I get around to re-purposing it.
You may have the last word in the thread. Make it convincing.
x68 Andy Christensen : none of that explains....No Debris at Point of Impact
2022-02-09
Maxwell Bridges thanks but none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact.
x70 Maxwell C. Bridges : simulation does not leave debris at the point of impact
2022-02-09
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Nothing in this discussion screams "bot" louder than your witty attempt at re-spinning a merry-go-round than: "none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact."
I said that a proper explanation of the physics of the aircraft and towers gives insight. Wouldn't you know it, someone just posted this link elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJ1IePcgVU
The simulation -- as far as it goes -- does not leave debris at the point of impact.
//
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : bat-shit crazy speculation on Flat Earth
2022-05-16
https://www.facebook.com/darris.mishler/posts/10160084762717089?notif_id=1652721494479407¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
My bat-shit crazy speculation on Flat Earth is that this was a disinformation campaigned aimed at both 9/11 Truth and moon landing critics. I first saw it seeded by FB personas posting on 9/11 Truth themes. Yes, 9/11 Truthers are open to alternative explanations, and yes, sometimes we get duped by clever premises (like pods on planes, no planes @ WTC, video fakery, etc.). However, disinformation usually has more than one agenda, and none of the agendas even have to be swallowed whole or by a lot of people to be successful; success is measured by the amount of doubt, confusion, and internal conflict the disinfo inflicts.
Unlike 9/11 Truthers, the Flat-Earthers are the most science challenged, whether legitimately a ding on their intellect, or a hallmark of the agenda they champion.
I think FE is a Helgian Dialectic (action, reaction, pre-planned resolution), whereby they smear those who questioned the moon landings and our inability today to "repeat" the same challenge (because "the technology was lost").
At any rate, when FEers can't and won't legitimately debate their premises and acknowledge counter-points, they prove that the Cass Sunstein infiltration of the internet was a success in controlling narratives even if it means riding unproductive disinfo carousels, because it means we aren't discussing things that matter.
//
x74 Andy Christensen : No planes, alright
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges No planes, alright
x76 Maxwell C. Bridges : comment is so cryptic
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Your comment is so cryptic, it could be understood in more than one way. 9/11 had four events involving allegedly aircraft. The two at the towers have sufficient evidence to prove involvement of actual aircraft [and it is a completely separate argument to say/prove the actual aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft.] The Pentagon had many witnesses of an aircraft flying but zero witnesses and zero released CCTV footage of an aircraft impact. Shanksville is the only one that screams "no aircraft at all."
But the fact that well-meaning people were duped by September Clues into thinking that 9/11 @ WTC had no aircraft at all and that it was entirely Hollywood video fakery, does not mean that this narrative -- even if opposed to the OCT -- is true.
//
x78 Andy Christensen : No debris at any point of impact. Zippo. Period.
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges your sufficient would be countering my proof however.
No debris at any point of impact. Zippo. Period.
x80 Maxwell C. Bridges : had this conversation before, and you lost by default
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You and I have had this conversation before, and you lost by default because you were unable/unwilling to address logically and reasonably the copious amount of evidence to real aircraft at the WTC.
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Here's where your losing discussion happened, under a top-level comment by Mr. David Tame.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
CRYPTOME.ORG
x82 Andy Christensen : NONE of you oinks gave ever addressed no debris at point of impact
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges well, that's what you are expected. You keep saying, copious, tons, inarguably, and on and with a lot of "Here, watch this film or read this...." Line but never once address my one and only premise by which all of you arguments come to moot.
I also notice NONE of you oinks gave ever addressed no debris at point of impact and always disregard it when brought by others.
Until then good luck pointing out all the "shills".
x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : your alleged argument of "no debris at point of impact" is an argument *for* a more high-velocity physics compliant explanation
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, stop projecting your weaknesses onto me. *You're* the doofus who isn't addressing the evidence given with the punch-out URL. Not only was it the URL provided, but evidence dragged back into the discussion from that URL... And all you can do is strap on your pogo-horse's seatbelts for another disinfo carousel spin on NPT@WTC.
If you could read, the other FB link most certainly had me discussing that your alleged argument of "no debris at point of impact" is in fact not an argument *for* no planes but *for* a more physics compliant explanation about how damage is inflicted in high velocity impacts against buildings *specifically* designed for such event, whereby the building designer even said on camera that an impact would be like a pencil piercing a screen door.
But thanks again for proving that your dubious agenda and you being a bot. Now go away.
Here's me quoting myself from your earlier spins.
+++ quote from me
Nothing in this discussion screams "bot" louder than your witty attempt at re-spinning a merry-go-round than: "none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact."
I said that a proper explanation of the physics of the aircraft and towers gives insight. Wouldn't you know it, someone just posted this link elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJ1IePcgVU
The simulation -- as far as it goes -- does not leave debris at the point of impact.
//
World Trade Center Tower 2 Litigation Animations
YOUTUBE.COM
x86 Andy Christensen : you do see debris at point of impact
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges oh so you do see debris at point of impact. Great. The next link you send place include it and a time reference if in a film. Thanks
Andy Christensen
But please, be my little grammar nazi, too, while you're at it. Always loved that diverse ad hominem.
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges nowhere was it proved. Quote it here for clarity...
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges nope, not a single reference to my whole premise....
And you said it was all there....
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : Living up to your bot expectations
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, three-comments in a row, and not a single one of them addresses the punch-out evidence! Living up to your bot expectations, I see, because you also skirted that same issue in our previous discussion! Worse, you didn't understand the proper explanation of impact physics last time, so your bot-ish ways gives no hope that you'll understand it now.
Go away, Andy-bot. Your algorithms are no longer required here.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
//
x90 Andy Christensen : You keep saying there is but it doesn't appear anywhere
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges but there is no description of that. You keep saying there is but it doesn't appear anywhere. Like i said cite the text...maybe there's a reason you can't do that. But please more personal attacks. That's a class shill MO.
x92 Maxwell C. Bridges : re-read how your ass was handed to you
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, A huge tell of a bot is an inability to follow links, read what is there, and incorporate that information into original thought (for or against.)
Because you seem unable to go to that earlier discussion to re-read how your ass was handed to you, allow me to quote myself back at you.
+++ Quoting Myself
You are factually wrong regarding airplane debris at the towers.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in it.
This wall assembly in the street also destroys arguments about crash physics. The plane plowed through one wall and the core area, and it still had enough energy to several the bolts of a wall assembly on the back-side and knock it to the street.
If nothing else, this should be saying how weak those connection bolts were.
Therefore, any damage on the front-side that can be attributed to entire wall assemblies being pushed about reduces total energy requirement and leaves energy available to bend or break box columns of wall assemblies elsewhere.
I also have it written up with images in the very last section of the re-purposed page [that documents some of my many discussions with no-planers.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
+++ Quoting Myself yet Again
You made the comment "zero debris at any and all points of impact." So? When the physics of both the towers and planes is described properly, why would there be aircraft debris left at the entrance hole?
The wall assemblies had built in failure points: namely, the bolts that connected wall assemblies to one another. If these bolts fail because they were severed [which takes energy, but not massive amounts] the wall assembly could then be plowed out of the way.
Once penetration happened, what structural content was there to resist the incoming plane? The concrete floors had 12 feet of air in between, and office content not fixed to anything would not necessarily have stopped heavy items from the plane, like wheel assemblies and engines, which both the WTC-1 backside punch out and the engine rocketing to Church and Murray (after bouncing off a roof) adequately prove.
I was duped by NPT for a few years, but I kept both my eyes and mind open for alternative, more physics compliant explanations. I had to recant my NPT views particularly after I saw the pictures of the wheel assemblies.
Only because I was duped by NPT@WTC did I ever step up to discuss the matter with other no-planers. As a friend in 9/11 Truth, I wanted to spare them the embarrassment for being wrong owing to being duped by a very crafty disinformation campaign. Because I'm lazy, I saved the discussions. I'll be happy to cut-and-paste from those discussions and disprove anything you'd want to bring up to support your NPT@WTC argument, but you can jump the gun and see what ammo I have diligently stored towards truth. Save ourselves some time and effort.
//
x94 Andy Christensen : Points of Impact. !!! Zippo.
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges And yey STILL.not one reference to the Points of Impact. !!! Zippo.
It's time to say Shalom, my friend ...
Andy Christensen
Cut and paste away ...or haven't I been saying that since the beginning?
x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : points of impact described in a physics-compliant manner
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I quoted myself twice from our earlier discussion where I most certainly referenced the points of impact and described it in a physics-compliant manner. You didn't read it the first time, or the second time posted here just a few minutes ago.
Your bot algorithms are too shallow to understand, so you spin out Mossad nonsense.
Fail!
You're done. You've lost. You're exposed as an Israeli agent/bot, programmed to spout nonsense and engage in stupid conflict. Go back to your Israeli Kabutz. Your "talents" here are no longer required. And when you see me posting something, just stay away, because you don't have the intellect or research to back it up.
Go away, Andy-bot. You're only hurting your own reputation.
//
x98 Andy Christensen : nothing to do Point of impact having no debris
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges oh tge part you ssid the "back wall" was on the sidewalk.
That's has nothing to do Point of impact having no debris.
Or " would not unnecessarily have stopped any heavy objects...." That's an opinion, not fact and what about the other 2million small light parts?
These are not answers, they're imaginations and suppositions. There is no debris of ANY TYPE WHATSOEVER... of any aircraft at any Point of Impact. Not one single, isolated, lone, individual identifiable piece if any part of the aircraft large small it otherwise.
But please keep coming back with the personal attacks .... it's quite revealing
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : Explain why you expect airplane debris to be hanging out at the entrance hole?
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, In a physics compliant way, please explain how a massive airplane traveling at 500 mph and sufficient energy to push impact wall assemblies out of the way and rip backside wall assemblies off of the towers would leave debris at the impact point?
Go ahead, Mr. Physics. Explain why you expect airplane debris to be hanging out at the entrance hole? And just what kind of airplane debris exactly do you expect to see there and why? And were the cameras accurate enough to capture the debris that you expect?
Further, keep in mind that the energy equation has a velocity squared term in that becomes excessively large at large velocities, sufficient to shatter weaker materials rather than expecting them to linger "as cohesive wholes."
You're making the claim, you defend it: with rational, intelligent, research physics.
Take your time, all evening if you have you.
You make the claim as if it is important, you back it up. And know that you already have my counter argument. You had best study it so that you'll have a target to refute. And if you can't refute it, admit defeat, apologize, and change your thinking.
//
x102 Andy Christensen : accusing of being a Israeli agent...!
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
Aweee...you're concerned with my reputation, how faking sweet!!?
Andy Christensen
Ha ha i bid you Shalom and immediately, like an insecure shithead, you come back accusing of being a Israeli agent...!
Precious.
Andy Christensen
If I see you posting shit....wait for the shovel.....no way staying away...
x104 Maxwell C. Bridges : make claims you can't defend in your bot-prompt replies
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, the promptness with which you do ~not~ defend your claim with anything even resembling a logical, rational, researched physics argument... Ah, sweetie! You're not very cute wallowing in your ignorance.
You make claims you can't defend in your bot-prompt replies. Already before I can finish this, you've got three-in-a-row that give new deeper meaning to "posting shit".
Physics. Use your physics, or STFU, Mr. Mossad-bot.
P.S. And don't forget to edit your recent lame comments to remove your typos.
//
x106 Andy Christensen : no plane made the hole...but no debris at points of impact
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges no plane made the hole....and it couldn't fly that fast anyways...but no debris at points of impact. Proof in every picture....
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges evrry claim i make is defended by every picture of the points of impact in existence. Bingo
Andy Christensen
Nah, you'll just have to decipher my typos....seems to he working just fine
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges i thought you said good bye to me....what are you still doing here?
x108 Maxwell C. Bridges : spam this thread
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, stop being a liar. You've made a claim, you defend it. It is that simple. Chop, chop.
Or is physics too tough for you, so you have to spam this thread... four in a row now, how quaint!
Go away, agent Andy-bot. You've lost and can't get it up.
P.S. The top-level comment is mine. I've told you to go away. Please do so.
//
x110 Andy Christensen : proof 8s in every picture ever taken of the points of impact
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges proof 8s in every picture ever taken of the points of impact. Show me one the proves me wrong.
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges I'm the 'bot' and you're the one with a fake profile pic...twice!!!
That's what a bot does, no?
x112 Darris Mishler : trotted the black boxes out into the light of day
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges
Please keep it cool: no personal attacks.
I'll have to take a closer look at 9/11: it's been about ten years since I've looked into it.
From a quick glance the plane parts don't look that big: they could have been planted?
I don't think they ever officially trotted the black boxes out into the light of day?
I don't know. It's been a long time since I've really looked it over.
There are a lot of rabbit holes around 9/11.
x114 Maxwell C. Bridges : second round on his NPT carousel
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, The defense against claims of defamation is when the statements against another are true.
In this particular instance with Mr. Andy Christensen, this is at least my second round on his NPT carousel -- I posted the FB URL above. Based on my lengthy experiences trying to get him to defend appropriately his claims and/or to acknowledge the aircraft evidence appropriately, Mr. Christensen comes across like a Mossad agent, if not bot, for how he reacts, can't follow links, can't integrate new information from those links into his discussion.
When I told him to stop being a liar, it was to his bellocose statement: "evrry claim i make is defended by every picture of the points of impact in existence."
Let the record also show, that while you, Mr. Darris Mishler, control all discussions under your posting, Maxwell Bridges has the top-level comment to this thread and thus owns that. Mr. Andy Christensen has been spamming this thread, hasn't defended his claim, and is insincere.
FTR, "debunking the NPT@WTC" isn't really even my hobby-horse, because FGNW is my niche take on the WTC destruction. I used to be duped by NPT@WTC, so I have a soft-spot for those who still are and would like to guide them to the truth that my continued research turned me to, and exposed the disinformation in the NPT@WTC premise.
The most anomalous thing about the many large aircraft parts is that they were never serial-numbered matched and reconstructed to the alleged commercial planes. Owing to added radar blips in the dozen war games that Osama bin Laden was able to plan for that day, the deviation from standard FAA practice when researching an aviation disaster allows one to speculate that the impacting WTC aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft.
The partial wheel assembly buried between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped off the backside of WTC-1 would not be easy to fake, nor the engine that rocketed towards Church and Murray and bounced off a roof [leaving damage in its wake] before being found on the street near a scaffolding. And if they were going to fake it, they could at least use the proper make-and-model for the alleged commercial aircraft.
The black boxes weren't found -- nor were significant body remains -- owing in part to my FGNW hobby-horse dustifying them with targeted beams of highly energetic neutrons from the multiple FGNW per detonation level.
//
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : my profile picture of meth-making-kingpin Heisenberg
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You seem to have an issue with my profile picture, which is of meth-making-kingpin Heisenberg, the alter-ego of high school chemistry teacher Walter White, a character played by actor Bryon Cranston in the series "Breaking Bad." Wait until you find out that "Maxwell C. Bridges" is the Heisenberg to the Walter White me, who is a human skin that my soul inhabits in this lifetime. The parallelism there is uncanny!
Your database responses need more depth. Your algorithms are incapable of a detailed, reasoned, researched, pondered, discussion. This is my thread, and you have been spamming it, distracting it, pushing buttons on it without any real depth, because that is all that agents / bots can do to keep with their agenda and their programming.
Fine. Just do it in your own top-level comment (your own thread), and bugger out of this thread.
You aren't at my level and aren't worthy of wasting more of my time.
Do, please, bugger off. [I've already got enough material from you for the next round/part/chapter of my series on "NPT and Internet Bots".]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
//
x118 Andy Christensen : animation cartoon shows no debris at point of impact
2022-05-16
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
{mcb: The following two comments came to the old thread eleven (11) weeks later and after a repeat of the same discussion on Mr. Darris Mishler's posting that suddenly went missing along with Darris Missler's Facebook profile 2022-05-16.}
Andy Christensen
Oh my. None if the artist's conception animation cartoon shows no debris at point of impact but never once can explain how that is possible, which 8s impossible. This film is the perfect official story line. So the greatest you can claim is that you agree with the official narrative. Brilliant
x120 Winston Smith : can't see many of them in the shitty videos and photos
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen Stanley Primnath saw wing parts in his WTC2 office. Yes there are plane parts to be found. No you can't see many of them in the shitty videos and photos.
x122 Maxwell C. Bridges : me issuing you a GOTO statement to return to comment 1 in this thread
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I'm so glad to have you rejoined in this discussion eleven (11) weeks after my last comment to this thread started by Mr. David Tame. It would serve you well to go back to the beginning and read our 43 comments in sequence again, but armed with any revelations we might have learned within that eleven weeks.
The discussion that Mr. Tame introduced at the top of this thread was "a pre-planted incendiary substance". My reply (the first comment) offered my speculation into FGNW as the true primary mechanisms of destruction.
And then by the third comment, you Andy-bot, are tossing out the seeds for an NPT carousel spin, tagging me, and proclaiming: "...and no planes...?" [Distracting from FGNW, anyone?]
Here's what funny. The Facebook profile of Darris Mishler may not exist anymore, and with it went missing postings that were his. So the re-spin of the above NPT carousel in a thread under Mishler's posting suffered a brutal setback with its sudden demise. Gone are all of those worthy words. [Except for what we saved off-line, right? For re-purposing later, right?]
But given that I was providing links back to this very FB discussion in a bot-friendly GOTO manner to definitely prove: "yes, I have already discussed this exact detail X, Y, and Z, and you defaulted and deflected on both Facebook threads at both time points in a very Mossad bot-like manner."
So, YES, Andy-bot, this is me issuing you a GOTO statement to return to comment 1 in this thread, sequentially read through our combined participation, and only respond to the purposeful gaps in your answers, such as a physics and logistics compliant explanation for the "Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of the WTC" link. Your analysis of that web page's content is woefully underdone, and this is a flaw that you GOSUB repeat.
Let's see if your disinfo agenda will let you speculate outside of this downward karmic spiral and into a more enlightened realm!
My hobby-horse in this thread is FGNW. But look at how much of this thread was consumed by you arguing poorly for a completely off-topic tangent into NPT@WTC. Worse, when this distraction is allowed to progress, NPT@WTC gets completely debunked, and your participation certainly did little credit in defense or articulation of NPT@WTC.
And let us not forget, that your participation also included some button-pushing, resulting in two of my comments being deemed a personal attack, flagged, and censored. The joke is on that FB algorithm, because if Andy-bot isn't a real person, then there is no person for the personal attack to impune. However, as I wrote them and in a belief that Andy-bot was a real boy, I knew my direct words weren't defamation, because they were substantiated and truthful. [Let this be a teaser that those censored words and this discussion will eventually get re-purposed into my publishing venues, so lurker readers can see for themselves whether my words should be censored.]
Thus, Mr. Andy Christensen, I believe we're coming to the end of the second NPT@WTC carousel spin and capping that endeavor properly.
The subject of this thread was actually "a pre-planted incendiary substance" that legitimately forked into related "FGNW." If you have original thoughts or impressions on this topic from having read my researched and reasoned efforts, you are welcome to comment on that FGNW topic.
+++
In case the Darris Mishler profile re-animates itself, here is the GOTO link (and proof it really did once exist.)
https://www.facebook.com/darris.mishler/posts/10160084762717089?notif_id=1652721494479407¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Don't worry. My web venues will eventually publish that masterful bot-spin on a NPT@WTC carousel.
//
x124 Andy Christensen : no you can't see ANY of them
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
Winston Smith
"can't see many of them"....well that imply you can see some and tgat simply isn't true so, no you can't see ANY of them.
And who the fuck is Stanley? Lie witness testimony!!!
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges no debris at any point of impact...period
Andy Christensen
Winston Smith What a crock of shit.....only a fool, sheeple or shill would promote this nonsense ...
" The left wing sliced through his office and became lodged in a door 20 feet (6 m) from him.[3] Praimnath was bruised and exhausted, and covered in debris after the crash, which left him stuck and unable to escape on his own"
Andy Christensen
{mcb: Through messenger.}
Yeah okay, but that doesn't explain zero debris a6 Points of Impact, does it?
So go ahead and call me all kinds of adolescent names and avoid the premise at every stage....that makes it even more convincing you have never presented an argument because you are unable to.
You're the one with the fact profile picture and NOTHING on your page that shows anything if your personal life... ain't like a jew to accuse others of what he is most guilty of. Shalom.
x126 Maxwell C. Bridges : For shame, Andy-bot. You aren't even trying.
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You were encouraged to start at comment 1 above and re-read our exchange, because answers to your later questions and concerns were already addressed.
According to your bot ways, you keep repeat posting various entries from your database: "no debris at any point of impact...period" and "... but that doesn't explain zero debris a6 Points of Impact, does it?"
GOTO the 9th (or so) comment of this thread to read the physics compliant explanation for the seeming anomaly [that your disinformation wants readers to believe means "no aircraft were involved."] And when you GOSUB 26 (or so comments), the links to the Sandia F4 crash and the Mythbuster rocket-sled videos are provided. They also exhibit the feature of "no debris at any point of impact".
Consider these gaps in your responses that you missed the first time around, and are now missing on your second pass through this discussion to see what transpired.
For shame, Andy-bot. You aren't even trying.
//
x128 Andy Christensen : how a plane crash produces no debris at point if impact
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges i read it. There us no explanation as to how a plane crash produces no debris at point if impact...let alone four times in the same day.
Even you admitted there is no debris at the point of impact.....
x130 Maxwell C. Bridges : How much firetruck debris do you expect to see "at the impact point"?
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, For the sake of discussion, let's assume there is a fire station with empty firetruck bays and its garage doors closed. Now let's say you drive a firetruck at 50+ mph directly into one of those closed garage doors. How much firetruck debris do you expect to see "at the impact point"?
According to your miserable understanding of physics, if no part of the firetruck is visible at the plane where the garage door used to be, then there was no firetruck period; it was all CGI. Doesn't matter that the firetruck drove through the closed front garage doors and right out through the closed rear garage doors. Even if you say that the fire station bays were not empty, it would still easily pierce the front garage doors, meet with non-fixed resistance, and launch pieces of its former self, like a partial wheel assembly maybe, through the back garage doors.
This analogy applies to the towers except for a couple of finer points already discussed that you are purposely not attempting to understand in your bot repetition.
Just like the front side firetruck garage door got plowed in, so did the WTC wall assembly where the 9/11 aircraft impacted, severing its connecting bolts making it easier to push out of the way and then not be a hindrance to further penetrating fuselage. This concept applies to the fuselage and the wings to where the engines were. And like the firetruck example, heavy pieces of the aircraft (landing gear, engines) were not significantly impeded by the content inside the towers allowing (as one example) a partial wheel assembly to sever the connecting bolts of the backside wall assembly, sending it to the parking lot nearby (just like pieces of the speeding firetruck were able to do.)
Beyond the engines on the wings is where a finer distinction is made, necessitated by the high velocity plugged into the velocity-squared term of the energy equation. Why, because that energy calculates to be sufficient to shatter and shred weaker wing material. Remember, 50% of the wall assembly face were empty window slits that provided near zero resistance to shredded wings penetrating the towers. Again, a physics compliant explanation of this event would say "there is no expectation that high velocity pieces of aircraft remain hanging out at the impact point." What wasn't shredded into the building was shattered and bounced off, the latter being caught on everyone's videos if you look closely at those far-away camera shots.
Your mantra "no debris at any point of impact" (at the towers) is nothing more than you not understanding properly the physics at play and allowing yourself to be duped by the clever disinformation of September Clues with your conclusions that "only CGI can account for it; there were no real planes."
Prove your objectivity. Nothing wrong with admitting defeat on this point and moving your 9/11 understanding closer to the truth... Unless you have a disinformation agenda that you're promoting in a very bot-repetitious manner. Bots and agents can never admit they are wrong, but objective and sincere real people do.
You wrote in messenger: "You're the one with the fact profile picture and NOTHING on your page that shows anything if your personal life." I assume that "fact profile picture" is a typo for "fake profile picture."
So what? Are you implying that my online Batman activities somehow defeats my salient points just because I'm not revealing my Bruce Wayne to you?!! The whole tenor of that argument reeks of an "ad hominem" attack on the messenger and not reasoned debate on the message. I have a Batman blog and Batman website, too, which as Bat caves go, is far superior to your sole online presence in Facebook.
Here are your choices the way I see them. You can use your next comment (1) to debunk my evidence [e.g., the punch out hole] and proper physics analysis, (2) to explain with physics why you think "no debris at entrance point" is even meaningful and important, or (3) to acknowledge the errors in your understanding and apologize.
If you do any of the three, I might find it in my heart to engage you further.
If you choose option (4) to do none of the above and repeat meaningless bot database entries like "no debris at entrance point", then (a) this will be my final engagement with you on this thread [and forever if at all possible] and (b) whatever you write can capstone this discussion allowing you graciously the final comments and words in this thread. Make them good ones.
I suspect you'll go with option 4 and not options 1-3, because I've been prodding you relentlessly in February and now in May to do an option 1 to 3, only to observe you continue to monumentally fail. I'll not let your lies and insincerity trigger me further. Prove me wrong or prove me right.
//
x132 Maxwell C. Bridges : under No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11
2022-05-16
Maxwell C. Bridges
Differnt old posting of mine under No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11
https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/757047848068843/?comment_id=757201728053455&reply_comment_id=1434477756992512¬if_id=1652991480260741¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif
x134 Andy Christensen : No plane parts at the point of impact and you conclude no plane hit!!!!!
2022-05-16
What!? No plane parts at the point of impact and you conclude no plane hit!!!!!
Wow! Imagine that! Whoda thunk?
x136 Maxwell C. Bridges : jokester with an agenda item to associate this Pentagon event with the events at the WTC
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Actually, the conclusion that the alleged commercial aircraft did not hit the Pentagon does not rely on plane parts at the entrance hole. Instead moving to the top of the list are 90-some FBI confiscated CCTV camera videos that could/would/should decisively depict to the doubting public the alleged commercial aircraft impacting the building [and not in truth, an impacting missile and a distracting fly-over plane that missed] which after 20 years they still have not made public.
But because you are being a jokester and have an agenda item to associate this Pentagon event with the events at the WTC, the entrance hole at the Pentagon wasn't 90 stories overhead, nor was the entirety of the area around the impact location decimated with 110 stories of content within a couple hours of impact to stymie later analysis. At the Pentagon, they could have dragged out and re-assembled from fragments a whole god-damn plane in a hanger -- like they do in all other aviation disasters... except those on 9/11. They didn't do that at the Pentagon or Shanksville because of them lacking a plane.
However, speaking of debris at the WTC entrance holes, if you were objective, you'd know that 90 stories below those holes was a slew of recorded evidence of plane debris. Surviving first responders reported seeing (and recorded) precisely the sliced and shattered airplane evidence that I keep telling you was compliant with the physics of a high velocity airplane impact, only instead of cluttering the entrance hole, it bounced outside but then had 90 stories to free-fall flutter to the ground. This was before either tower came down.
There is that evidence and more at the following URL. Prove you aren't a bot. Go to the URL, copy something [like maybe an image's URL, or a paragraph], and paste that information here into your next comment.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
+++++++
For the benefit of lurker readers. In February 2022, Mr. Andy Christensen performed a thread-jacking of an explosives-vs.-FGNW discussion by cranking a carousel spin through "no planes at the WTC." Then in May 2022 on a different FB thread, Mr. Andy Christensen did another thread-jacking into NPT@WTC.
Spoiler: I'm a real person who gets sick of repeated spins on such disinformation carousels. When Mr. Andy Christensen wasn't being sincere and when he was bot-ishly spamming the thread(s) with incoherent fake NPT discussion points, I reverted to being my lazy-ass self by providing into the May discussion quotations and GOTO Facebook URLs to the February discussion to prove: "yes, indeed, we attempted to discuss details X, Y, and Z, but Mr. Andy Christensen evaded convincing rebuttal in stellar agent/bot fashion."
As fate would have it, the owner of the Facebook posting from May, under which the thread-jacking spin into NPT@WTC transpired, abruptly departed Facebook entirely, and now gone & inaccessible are all his postings and all discussion threads underneath them. 2nd carousel spin gone from Facebook.
Let this be a lesson for sincere Facebook participants to SAVE their worthy words off-line!
Whew, that I learned this lesson early this century. Alas until I get off my lazy-ass and re-publish my efforts to my new website (woefully procrastinated in its development), you'll just have to take my word that it transpired. [A URL to the departed FB content from May available upon request.]
As a consolation, here's a link to the first (February) carousel spin that Mr. Andy Christensen went back to in May, after the second one was decommissioned.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
At any rate for the lurker readers, if I am short and unflattering to Mr. Andy Christensen here, it is because of our discussion history giving me doubts as to his sincerity beyond an agent/bot agenda. The links (while they survive in Facebook) substantiate my opinion and justify my demeanor.
It is so little that I ask for Mr. Andy Christensen to prove he isn't bot: a quotation and/or image URL from the Punch Out web page.
I predict at least three-comments-in-a-row from Mr. Andy Christensen, and none of them will allow him to pass the "I'm not a bot" test.
//
x138 Andy Christensen : Having no debris at the point of impact is the proof
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges oh, so camera footage that was never seen is proof. Having no debris at the point of impact is the proof
x140 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bots don't jump into "See more..." content any more than they follow links and provide original thought on the content at those links
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I commend you on both your patience and holding back another rapid-fire spamming (3-4 short comments in-a-row), but must at the same time unfortunately chide you for your poor reading comprehension. What does this mean to you: "moving to the top of the list"?
To me when I wrote it, I was saying that there is a long list of analysis, research, and evidence to suggest that no airplane impacted the Pentagon, but that over time the ordering of the list changes. The never-released CCTV footage has moved many slots in its placement of importance on that list. Emphasis is on "list" and not any single item.
If you want to talk Pentagon aircraft debris, the lack of debris at the entrance hole isn't the damning issue suggesting a ruse.
No, the damning issue is the lack of aircraft debris starting just after the first downed light pole and trickling into the lawn. In other words -- as at the WTC but in this case talking a theoretical alleged aircraft --, if you are calculating from radar data a very high velocity in the aircraft, the velocity-squared term in the energy equation means that even a breakaway light pole can cause crippling structural wing damage and early flight termination, such that debris would be all over the lawn, into the construction trailers, against the wall...
The Pentagon damage is just too precise, and too little effort was spent by FAA officials in grabbing all fragments and re-building the aircraft in some hangar, even if just out of morbid curiousity and rote habit as they did it for space shuttles and all other aircraft crashes.
Given that my comment had many points to it and Andy-bot only addressed a partial point of what he could read before the "See more..." expansion link, this becomes another data point in the treadline of Andy-bot.
Why? Bots don't jump into "See more..." content any more than they follow links and provide original thought on the content at those links, let alone drag back a quotation or imagine URL. But damn if that wasn't the bot-test that was in the "See more..." region!
//
{mcb: For some reason, Andy-bot must have been searching me out. His interest in this old posting of mine -- as a place to continue is NPT@WTC -- somehow triggered others to look at this posting and "like" and/or comment under other threads, such as this,
x142 Michael W. Lurie : not an "exit hole."
2022-05-16
Michael W. Lurie: Maxwell Bridges, it was not an "exit hole."
Michael W. Lurie: Maxwell Bridges, but once you know...you know.
And Daniel Coble liking: https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/?multi_permalinks=757047848068843&comment_id=757648324675462¬if_id=1653013902914015¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
x144 Andy Christensen : you admit again, no debris at ANY POINT OF IMPACT on 9/11
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges so you admit again, no debris at point of impact?
Nope. Absolurnot one single piece of any aircraft can be seen at ANY POINT OF IMPACT on 9/11. The 'list' stops right there. No need to extend it any further.
Someone needs to make something out of the impossible when that simply CANNOT happen.
Every single photo if the towers shows exactly that. But, shill away.... shalom.
x146 Maxwell C. Bridges : Your defense amounts to repeating a expectation that isn't physics compliant minus any explanation
2022-05-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You remain as ever a Mossad-bot steadfast in your inability to follow links, read their content, copy quotations (or an image URL) from thence, and paste that newfound information into your comment with relevant additional insight from you.
Instead of tackling that small task presented to you multiple times to dispell your bot-ness, you double-down on your bot-database entry "no debris at entry point" with nary a physics-compliant high-velocity crash explanation on why you even think that tidbit might even be "a thing", nor an acknowledgement of the physical evidence and eye-witness accounts (at the WTC) that directly counter your "no debris at entry point", albeit 90 stories below at street level.
At the Pentagon where I believe no aircraft impact, I most certainly admit no debris at point of impact with building, nor at or near any of the six allegedly impacted light poles. At the WTC where I believe real aircraft were involved, (a) I've explained the high-velocity crash physics whereby no science-literate rational thinker would expect there to be recognizable aircraft debris caught by distant cameras lingering at the plowed through entrance hole (b) while also providing the ground-level pictorial evidence close enough (minus 90 stories) to the impact point to prove your assertion irrelevant.
All things that you have performed Mossad-bot gymnastics to avoid as much as a simple acknowledgement or words of contrition that your premise needs to be re-thought and amended to account for.
Your comment "No need to extend it any further" is science-challenged ignorance of the highest order coupled with an agent/bot agenda, and wrong.
Imagine a race car hitting an orange, plastic, water-filled course barrier barrel at very high speed (but still less than the aircraft velocity by half.) How much of the race car or the plastic barrel would you expect to find right at the point where the barrel used to stand for the course barrier?
Without substantiation or physics-compliant analysis, your illogical premise is that pieces of both the car and the orange barrel should be found exactly where the barrel once stood and was impacted, "velocity, momentum, and inelastic crash physics be damned!"
Your defense of your premise amounts to repeating a bullshit and irrelevant statement minus any explanation that could convince anyone, while at the same time blatantly ignoring (with zeal across multiple postings and threads) evidence and analysis adhering to physics that counters your disinformation.
You as a person are less than sincere, and can't even pass a repeatedly administered test that you aren't a bot.
Until you at least attempt to rectify these deficiencies in your character and actions, you have my permission to make one final "farewell" comment to my posting/thread before going away and staying away for good.
//
x148 Andy Christensen : how all debris simply vanished from all Points of Impact
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges i keep following your links and not one of them even remotely mentions how all debris simply vanished from all Points of Impact.... At least you're consistent.
Again, i wish yoy a shalom and immediately you come back accusing me of being Mossad, which is exactly how a Mossad would respond...you know their creed about deception, et al. So easy to read....
No debris @ Point of Impact....100% impossible...go ahead and deny it.
x150 Andy Christensen : I thought you were the one leaving
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
High speed race car hitting a plastic barrel...ha ha. God, that is precious.
Andy Christensen
Why would i want to bid you farethewell? I thought you were the one leaving. I already told I ain't goin no where.
x152 Maxwell C. Bridges : just hid three-in-a-row short spamming comments
2022-05-16
For the benefit of lurker-readers, I just hid three-in-a-row short spamming comments from Mr. Andy Christensen (Andy-bot) that said nothing of importance, had no substantiating links, had no analysis, had nothing to convince anyone of anything except "button-pushing."
I think what set me over the edge was his lie in the first comment "i keep following your links..." Nope, never happened, and here's how I know. If Andy-bot ever visited and read the content at those links:
- He would have noticed that I've posted the same Punch-Out link several times over the course of at least three threads under three different postings. He made no complaints about duplication or repetition, because he never went there, never read it, and never registered in his mind "Hey, I've seen this before!"
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
- He could have copied a paragraph or image URL from that Punch-Out source, pasted it into his comment, and proven with that simple act that Andy-bot wasn't a bot.
- He would have discovered at that link very convincing evidence of aircraft involvement.
The Andy-bot has been asked ~many~ times to explain in a physics-compliant manner why "(lack of) debris at the point of impact" might be significant, and he was/is even encouraged to locate substantiation for his assertions of it being somehow meaningful to support/debunk certain premises. Challenges that were beyond his bot-algorithms.
It becomes clear that Andy-bot plays dizzying game of "debris at entrance hole" because his agenda won't let him objectively consider "debris that is the exit hole" and its cause being the partial wheel assembly lodged between two of its box columns.
Andy-bot complained of that link: "not one of them even remotely mentions how all debris simply vanished from all Points of Impact...."
(1) That is Andy-bot's crippled hobby-horse, so it wasn't any job of a link of mine to mention it. (2) The debris did not vanish; most of it had momentum to continue penetrating the towers once the entrance hole was plowed, and the wings clearly shattered and shredded and much bounced off the wall to flutter to the ground as seen in videos.
Andy-bot doesn't understand physics, which is why he ignores what the F4 Sandia crash and the MythBuster rocket-sled video teach. They also have "No debris @ Point of Impact", and proves it to be "100% possible...go ahead and deny it."
Andy-bot gave the seemingly witty rebuttal with zero analysis: "High speed race car hitting a plastic barrel...ha ha. God, that is precious."
Andy-bot asked: "Why would i want to bid you farethewell?"
Because I own this posting and get to moderate its comments.
Andy-bot tries to intimidate: "I thought you were the one leaving. I already told I ain't goin no where."
My future engagement of you will be on a strictly shits-and-giggles basis and if I feel like it, and if your comments are worthy of me not hiding them.
//
x154 Andy Christensen : some remained behind
2022-05-16
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges "most of it gad momentum.." that means some remained behind.... Where is it?
Andy Christensen
A "wheel punch out" didn't happen because punched into the building or there would be debris left behind.
No, I didn't mention your repeated posts as I went through them the first time (as well as years ago) and nothing ever explains how it is possible to have No Debris At Point Of Impact.... not one word
x156 Maxwell C. Bridges : no depiction after their high-velocity events of debris just hanging out there at the impact point
2022-05-16
Andy-bot seems confused that a fuselage would have momentum to enter the towers after plowing an entrance hole, while the wings being lighter and flimsier shattered and shredded, some going through window slits and some fluttering to the ground. So he asks, "that means some remained behind... where is it?" So I repeat, "shattered and shredded and fluttered to the ground."
Andy-bot laments: "nothing ever explains how it is possible to have No Debris At Point Of Impact.... not one word"
Too bad that the F4 Sandia crash and the MythBuster rocket-sled video also don't have an explanation for "No Debris At Point Of Impact.... not one word", nor do they have depiction after their high-velocity events of debris just hanging out there at the impact point.
By rights, "no entry point debris" Andy-bot has lots of physics-compliant instances where this is the case, but he's too science-challenged to know, too reading-challenged to study a physics book, too researched-challenged to look up anything that would substantiate his misguided expectation of "entry point debris" after a high-velocity impact.
//
x158 Andy Christensen : Flumsier shattered and shtedded
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges haha... Flumsier shattered and shtedded.....complete bullshit. Where the hell did you come up with those verbs...sirry you are tequired to use verbage like disintegrate, vaporize and gone poof to describe debris.
Going through window slits???? Complete fantasy.
"And some fluttering to the ground" without any evidence of that whatsoever....nada! Repeat 6 million times dies mean the story is true.
F4 crash has no bearing on alleged 9/11 impacts. Completely different environment, and impact point made of 18 feet of solid concrete. Jesus man, you are reaching.
x160 Maxwell C. Bridges : brief assertions without substantiation and analysis are sufficient hypnosis
2022-05-16
The Andy-bot thinks that brief assertions without substantiation and analysis are sufficient hypnosis to prove his disinformation case and refute that which was presented with substantiation and analysis compliant with high-velocity physics, which do change dynamics and legitimately add the verbiage "shattered", "shredded," and "sliced" to the crash physics description in reference to, say, the lighter material of wings.
[Changed dynamics to the crash physics was the most important takeaway from the F4-Sandia and MythBuster rocket-sled videos of high-velocity crashes, how the velocity-squared term in the energy equation is sufficient to act to tear apart the materials. "No aircraft debris at impact point" ends up being a very funny side-effect to clog Andy-bot's gears.]
But who am I kidding? Andy-bot can't even prove he isn't a bot by pasting a quotation or an image URL from a source reference, mostly because just going to that reference, let alone a mere acknowledgement of any of the factoids presented there, shoots torpedoes through both his disinformation "no planes theory" (@WTC) and his integrity. Whether or not the aircraft was the alleged commercial aircraft, the source provides irrefutable proof of real aircraft involvement.
Not that I care about Andy-bot's integrity, but that Andy-bot doesn't care about his integrity either, which is why it is perfectly acceptable for all lurker readers to peg him as a Mossad agent-bot.
You see, a sincere and genuine seeker & preserver of Truth in the presence of new information and analysis that knocks out pillars of their understanding of events would be able to admit to this, to this shaking of their previous beliefs, and to the necessity of re-thinking their previous position.
Doesn't mean that they would be all in immediately, but that they would be able to entertain a bit of doubt that what they understood may not have been complete or true. They would be able to humbly pull at the threads of the "clever disinformation" that duped them and unravel the nuggets of truth from the web of "narrative control" and lies. At the very least, a sincere person would shut up until they worked through the pain of this cognitive dissonance.
So, lurker-reading boys and girls! Let this be a lesson. Only agent-bots double-down on their shallow bullshit when handily defeated, and pop up on other threads to crank the same disinfo carousel in their shallow manner.
Emphasis is on "shallow". Don't be expecting multi-paragraph rebuttals made point-by-point to arguments that refute their disinformation. Like the GOP used to sing over-and-over [even years later], "Oh, but ~her~ emails!" [in reference to Sec. H. Clinton], good old Andy-bot sings, "Oh, but the no aircraft debris at the impact point!" and runs out of breath before a physics compliant explanation for why such a dubious expectation would even be important in the first place.
U2 used to sing in the chorus of one of their 1980's songs: "Shadows! Shadows! And tall trees...", gets paraphrased around Andy-bot as "Shallow! Shallow! And tall lies.".
I doubt that Mr. Andy Christensen can even read this far into my comment, for: "Shallow! Shallow! And tall lies." But if he does, this rebuttal was performed for two reasons: (1) for the benefit of lurker-readers; (2) for my own shits-and-giggles.
It was not done for the Andy-bot's benefit, because his algorithms are not in learning/adapting mode, so I'd be the fool if I thought my detailed analysis to his shallow disinformation would ever change his mind, or get him to admit a mistake, admit being in error, admit having to evolve his understanding. Nope. Ain't none of that expected to happen in Andy-bot's memory circuits, because his disinformation agenda is fixed, and he is paid not to change his mind publicly. The exposure of the existence of an Andy-bot... simply provides validation to other conspiracy theories on "narrative control" and "cognitive infiltration of the internet."
//
x162 Maxwell C. Bridges : SAVE your work
2022-05-16
Andy-bot: make sure you SAVE your work from this thread off-line. I just unhid the lame comments from you that I had previously hid, just to be fair to you and give you a chance to preserve your words.
Make any subsequent comments to this thread WORTHY and meaningful, and above and beyond all of your effort in this thread combined to-date.
OTHERWISE, I'm gonna hide your top-level comment and all that transpired there under. [I have my own off-line copy for re-publication later already.] If you don't put out the effort requisite, I don't need to give you a time-sucking platform to dull the senses of innocent lurker-readers under my posting.
Nope, I'll be happy to deep-six you here, and then resurrect your lame-ass loop-de-doo disinfo spins as a new future chapter in my saga of "NPT and Internet Bots" on my (heavily procrastinated re-designed) website and blog that I control (and Facebook and you do not, BWAHAHAHA!)
And if you decide to beat me to the punch by killing your own top-level comment and subsequently removing all that transpired in this wonderful thread: BWAHAHAHA! I'll make mention of your actions in a post-script to my re-purposing of this... when I get around to it. But when I do, BWAHAHAHA on you.
//
x164 Andy Christensen : much like the holycost discussions
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges ahh censorship.much like the holycost discussions. Classic zionist method...
"Since i don't like what you say, and i can't argue your points, I'll just delete you ..... " What a surprise!
x166 Maxwell C. Bridges : not "censorship" but "inspiration" to write worthy rebuttals that aren't so purge-worthy in their stupidity
2022-05-16
If you take the steps to preserve your words because they are worthy and need to exist beyond these corporate-speech realms of Facebook, then it isn't "censorship" but "inspiration" to write worthy rebuttals that aren't so stupid, lurker readers are asking why you wrote and posted such nonsense, and why you didn't step-up your game to meet the higher standard?
You aren't sincere, Andy-bot. I am, even though I have a borrowed Heisenberg image for my profile, woo-hoo!
When you drop foul seeds that you don't have the depth to water into fruition, when the sunlight of substantiation doesn't burst forth from your finger tips when you dribble your time-sucking bait into your keyboard, then Andy-bot I would be doing you an immense favor to disappear their stupidness from gracing these hallowed discussions threads in corporate Facebook while preserving them for my internet journals: "Carousel Spins of Mossad Agent/bots".
I crave an exchange on the order of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Sad how you disappoint. Not a surprise.
//
x168 Andy Christensen : yeah YOU'RE the sincere one
2022-05-16
Maxwell Bridges
Bit, was that a ton of bullshit..yeah YOU'RE the sincere one.
There is no debris at any point if 8mpact. You being a 'no planer' yourself already made that assessment.
I don't ned to preserve my words from your censorship.... I say them all the time. Br a coward if you wish. Shalom .
x170 Andy Christensen : how much stopping power
2022-09-16
https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/1513992492374371/?comment_id=1514201435686810&reply_comment_id=1514309652342655¬if_id=1663350103334608¬if_t=group_comment_mention
Question: how much stopping power does a slatted fence like structure with more open space to travel through than steel face to hit, have against a 200,000 pound mass slamming into it at 350 mph?"
350? Uhm, us that the official rate if speed or did someone make it up?
More open space? You mean like in the photograph, or is that meant to be misleading, deceptive and false? Shouldn't you just take the dimensions of the actual POINT OF IMPACT (something you often ignore). That's what a truther would do, no? I'll expect those official dimensions forthright.
x172 Maxwell C. Bridges : a useless analogy
2022-09-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, "If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers." ~Thomas Pynchon.
The stopping power of a slatted fence is the wrong question, and provides a useless analogy.
A more correct question is: how much energy is required to sever the steel bolts that connect together wall assemblies? If this energy is less than the energy to physically slice through the hollow box columnS of wall assemblieS, then the question becomes: what would be observed if those bolts failed? The answer: the impacted wall assemblies would get pushed out of the way along with the concrete floors, because there was, say, a good 10 feet of literal air above and below the impact level which would provide adequate space for material to get pushed into. [Stated another way, once the impact walls were breached, structure and content that would significantly resist further penetration was much less.]
//
x174 Andy Christensen : more crazy than the one trying to defend the official narrative?
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges what conspiracy theorist is more crazy than the one trying to defend the official narrative?
x176 Maxwell C. Bridges : nothing that I have written supports the official narrative.
2022-09-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Whereas all "information" about 9/11 -- particularly from government agencies -- is literally "disinformation", the requirement of the disinfo vehicle is to have nuggets of truth in order to con the public into its more dubious agenda.
All sincere seekers of truth are required to rescue nuggets of truth from all sources, even the official narrative. Rescuing nuggets does not necessarily validate the (disinfo) vehicle they were found in, nor does their occupancy in that vehicle damn them as not being truths.
Be that as it may, whereas I have rescued nuggets of truth from the official narrative, nothing that I have written supports the official narrative.
In fact, here are some more rescued nuggets of truth, to remind you that you have unfinished business in your learning.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
CRYPTOME.ORG
x178 Andy Christensen : planted evidence
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges planted evidence >
x180 Andy Christensen : no debris of any aircraft at all alleged impact sites
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges no debris of any aircraft at all alleged impact sites....no matter how much was planted away from it.
x182 Maxwell C. Bridges : four different aircraft events you are deceitfully trying to conflate together as one
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, oh that's right! You're a bot; I forgot. I mean, I go posting a link to photographic evidence of aircraft debris at the WTC, and the first words typed into the keyboard from you is the obvious lie "no debris of any aircraft."
It was four different aircraft events. You are deceitfully trying to conflate them all together as one, rather than picking them apart one-by-one.
At issue here is the towers. Focus on that, because on that premise I have supplied the link with images that refutes your "lie" because this isn't the first spin I've taken on your carousel; you've had enough time to research my posting. But a clue to your bot-ness, you can't even copy-and-paste a quote from the URL that I posted to prove that you even went there, if only to skim through the images.
//
x184 Andy Christensen : I said at point of impact
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges I said at point of impact, didn't I. Nice strawman argument
x186 Andy Christensen : none of those photos shows any at points of impact
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges and none of those photos shows any at points of impact. Ooops
x188 Maxwell C. Bridges : an algorithm bug over representing the assumed factoid of "no aircraft debris at point of impact"
2022-09-16
Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Sad for you and your participation here is that you continually fail the bot-test. The Facebook link is provided below to an earlier FB discussion between you and I on this very same "planes at the WTC" subject with the very same link provided with the very same injunction to "copy a quote from the destination URL and paste it into your next comment" to prove you visited the website and maybe skimmed it and are human enough to "copy and paste" a quotation from it that might further the discussion in a positive manner.
Didn't happen then. Didn't happen now... Means the Andy-bot algorithms are functioning within parameters for the agenda.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Here is a secondary test for Andy-bot. In your bot-ish curt reply, you exclaimed "Nice strawman argument." You make the claim; you defend the claim. Please explain from something in my comment the "error in its ways" that turns it into an alleged "strawman argument." Curious minds want to know. Or was the Andy-bot bluffing and just filling the thread with flame-baiting canned database entries, knee-trigger-like?
The Andy-bot -- over many FB threads not just this one -- has an algorithm bug in the form of over representing the assumed factoid of "no aircraft debris at point of impact". Would Andy-bot even recognize aircraft debris in the long-distance photos of the impact point? How far could the photos peer into the impact points? After the high-velocity impact, what form did Andy-bot expect the debris to take? Specifically, if shattering, shredding, and deformation is the expectation from a high-velocity collision, why is the Andy-bot expecting the long-distance camera work to depict this in detail? (Is Andy-bot expecting an in-tact wing or tail section to just sit there at the plowed opening? If so, why, and how would that be compliant with high-velocity physics?) Why does the Andy-bot ignore the evidence visible on the ground before either towers came down?
//
x190 Andy Christensen : none of the photos ... at the point of impact
2022-09-16
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges Yeah, I hear ya but none of the photos you showed were at the point of impact, we they... Oh well, here we go again....
Andy Christensen
"assumed factoid of "no aircraft debris at point of impact"." Except you are unable to debunk it....are you. Nope, not one piece of debris at any point of impact.....ZIPPO. Oh well.....same old, same old.
x192 Maxwell C. Bridges : Your participation is insincere
2022-09-16
Dear Andy-bot, Your brief database entry is insufficient to address the several challenges put forth. You keep failing the bot-test, fail to answer questions, fail to defend your claims. Your participation is insincere, and as much as OCD makes me a bot, I'll run myself a subroutine to remind lurker readers.
You wrote: "Yeah, I hear ya."
Nope. You don't. Let's ignore that you factually "might have read my words" and that you didn't "hear" them. If you were (non-agenda-toting) human, nothing in your demeanor suggests "comprehension" (aka "hearing") about discussion points or needed changes in behavior to give everyone -- your discussion opponent, forum participants, (latter-day) lurker readers -- some peace of mind that you were and are sincere. Too quickly, your bot-limits are reached, devolving the discussion into just another carousel spin.
//
x194 Andy Christensen : Yu still haven't disproven anything I have said
2022-09-16
Andy Christensen
Maxwell Bridges There you go...done! or you need mor again, like last time? Yu still haven't disproven anything I have said or claimed.
{mcb:May be an image of outdoors
x196 Maxwell C. Bridges : insufficient database entry to address the several challenges
2022-09-16
Dear Andy-bot, Your brief database entry is insufficient to address the several challenges put forth. Fail. Only insanity or subroutine algorithms explain your weak, two-liner, database entries for their shear repetition and purposeful miss at furthering any positive exchange.
I'm guessing that Israeli agents are running the bots for the FB personas like this one. Jew (or rather "Zionist") hiding behind the "Christensen" name is exactly what one could expect from Mossad. Shalom.
Andy-bot, have you ever made a referenced and detailed comment longer than one paragraph that automatically had FB create a "... See more" insertion for you?
When your discussion opponent regularly has "... See more" breaks in his comments, because they are more than two lines of well researched and articulated words, then you'll have a hard time besting his arguments below the "... See more" fold, that I suspect as Andy-bot you don't even have the abilities to click and expand, just like you can't follow links in content, much less discuss rationally what is presented.
For shame, for shame.
//
x198 Andy Christensen : the problem with my repeating mantra
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges Yeah,but the problem with my repeating mantra is is that you never addressed it .... can't even deny it. Amazing
No Debris at any alleged Point of Impact. Period.
I like your shill reversal premise too except it doesn't work in that direction
x200 Maxwell C. Bridges : played the exact same games then as you do now
2022-09-16
Dear Andy-bot, Your brief entry is insufficient to address the several challenges put forth. Fail.
Your lies & projection are easy to spot and defeat. Watch this! You wrote: "you never addressed it", where "it" refers to the stupid repeated mantra of "no aircraft debris at the impact point."
Are you watching?... Okay, here it is: a Facebook link from 32 weeks ago (under the top-level comment from Mr. David Tame).
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
You played the same games then as you do now: the exact same games. Bot. You've learned nothing, improved your argument not in the slightest, and ignored the questions that you'd need to answer in order to support your claim.
Furthermore, from the aspect of high velocity physics and proper mechanical characteristics of the fuselage, wings, and tower structure, you have yet to prove why you expect "aircraft debris right at the entrance point"? What form would that debris take? Are you talking [A] whole wings, engines, and tails? Or [B] fragments of wings as physics-compliant left-overs from the high velocity impact, and if "B", then what makes you believe the resolution of the long-distance lens of the cameras would pick up such clear images of fragments that can be pegged to an aircraft?
Further, what makes you think that heavy objects -- engines and landing gear --, having severed wall assembly connecting bolts, pushed assemblies out of the way, and bent hollow box columns, wouldn't still have momentum that would carry them away from the point of impact? Geez, in one case, a partial wheel assembly passed into the towers, went through the office furnishings, smacked into the rear wall, severed its connecting bolts, and ripped it right off the backside of WTC-1 to be found and photographed before either tower came down in a neighboring parking lot. In another case, video evidence shows an engine coming out of the corner office of the impact floor (e.g., no beam in the middle of the window), traveled over 2 football fields, damaged and bounced off of a roof, and was found near scaffolding on Church and Murray. Physics compliant: exit velocity of only 122 mph (down from 500 mph) would allow it to go the distance.
You somehow expect that "large", "recognizable-as-coming-from-an-aircraft" pieces of debris would be visible within x feet of the entrance hole and captured on camera. You ignore the fact that within -x feet of those same entrance hole is indeed the debris you seek, except that such fragments are at z = -1000 feet from the hole and only got there because they fell to the ground.
Your repeated inability to acknowledge and address these challenges pegs you as an agent/bot. Your limited responses peg you as a non-native english speaker, unable to defend your so-called "argument" with anything more than slogans. Yep, you are Mossad, Andy-bot, who like any good agent had the weekend off from his agency duties. Monday morning, like the job it is, you come back and stir the pot.
//
x202 Andy Christensen : none of which remained at he alleged point of impact
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges 3052sqft aluminum sheeting in wings alone, none of which remained at he alleged point of impact.. Zippo.
x204 Maxwell C. Bridges : never stated the significant physics correlation for "no debris at entry point" importance
2022-09-16
Dear Andy-bot, Thank you for proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are an insincere Mossad agent/bot. Too difficult to answer questions about your premise, so you don't. Way too easy to paste in meaningless slogans "no debris at entry point" , so that's what you do.
You have never stated the significance, much less the physics correlation, that supposedly in you feeble mind makes "no debris at entry point" important, while at the same time avoided repeatedly pointed questions that, if you were sincere in your efforts to defend your premise, you'd would endeavor to answer, one by one.
Failure to do this signifies that you don't care. You don't care about your own premise, don't care to defend it, don't care that a few unanswered questions so easily destroys it, don't care how this lame-ass effort is reflected on your intelligence and integrity. You are insincere.
The only thing that you, Andy-bot, is sincere about is posting bullshit that might somehow continue to poison the well of 9/11 truth while also being a time-suck for others. Not even like the joker of early internet, do you wind up the participants, because you have neither humor nor earnestness; all you get is cold hard cash for your minimal minutes' posting efforts.
Please carry on WITHOUT ME.
//
x206 Malcolm Sturrock : how much damage to the fly swatter do you think that thin fly ass would make?
2022-09-16
Within the laws of physics it doesn't make a difference if the plane slammed into the building or the building was travelling and slammed into a stationary plane. It would be the same outcome exactly...So imagine if you will a huge fly swatter made of really thick beams of solid steel and masses of concrete pylons smacking a fly made of the thinnest layer of soft aluminium, plastic and mostly air, clothing and flesh inside...how much damage to the fly swatter do you think that thin ass fly would make? A: zero
x208 Maxwell C. Bridges : three HOLLOW box columns about 30 feet tall and connected together with three spandrels
2022-09-16
Dear Mr. Malcolm Sturrock, your analogy has several flaws. You make the comment "really thick beams of solid steel" supposedly in reference to the towers. ERROR! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!
The wall assemblies were composed of three HOLLOW box columns about 30 feet tall and connected together with three spandrels. The thickness of the sides of the HOLLOW box columns depended on elevation of where the assembly was positioned in the towers, whereby the thickness of the sides of a HOLLOW box column were thinner the higher they were in the towers, because they didn't need to support as much weight.
So, right out of the gate, your description of "really thick beams of solid steel" is factually WRONG.
More importantly, the fuselage and engines did not slice through the HOLLOW box columns of the wall assemblies (with only a handful of individual exceptions, some of which might actually be "bent" rather than "cut.") Why? Because the connecting bolts between wall assemblies were built-in failure points and were easily severed by the energy present at impact allowing those assemblies to be pushed out of the way like doors. This is observable in many images right after the impact.
To the premise of connecting bolts being built-in-failure points, a partial wheel assembly from the first aircraft had so much energy after impact and penetration that it lodged itself between two hollow box columns of a wall assembly that got ripped off the backside of WTC-1 and fell to a parking lot (and was photographed from several angles before either tower came down). In other words, not only did it help plow an entrance path but went ahead and knocked out an exit path from the backside as well.
The concrete floors were, say, 10-12 feet apart, which is plenty of literal air above and below to get push into, even if accordion-style. The concrete floors were not "masses of concrete pylons". They were were a few inches thick resting on metal pans supported by metal trusses attached to the wall assemblies.
As for the wings, they DID slice through (or knocked off) the aluminum cladding wing tip to wing tip giving the illusion (spun by deceitful NPT disinfo) that the walls had a neat cartoon cutout image of the plane. However, the steel wall assemblies behind the aluminum cladding remained in tact for most of the wing span except at the engines and fuselage. In other words, penetration of the wall assemblies was not a full wing-span slice, but more engines and fuselage centric with the exception of what was sliced and traveled through near zero-resistance window slits.
Furthermore, we're not talking parking lot velocities or autobahn/fly-swatter velocities; the 9/11 aircraft were flying high velocities (500 mph) where the physics changes owing to the energy present in the impact (stemming from the velocity squared term in the energy equation).
Specifically, the energy of high velocities impacts (as demonstrated by the Sandia F10 crashes and the Mythbuster's Rocket Sled videos) is sufficient to shatter materials locally. Meaning, the expectation for the light materials of the wings is that they would shatter and slice themselves upon impact with the steel box columns of the wall assembly, which would have deformation and damage at impact. And they did. High velocity impacts, there is no expectation that whole wing assemblies or tail assemblies would bounce off the wall and remain as cohesive wholes (a deceit of NPT). What wing fragments didn't progress through window slits did bounce off the wall; the distance of all cameras from the event misconstrues the size and nature of those fragments visible at impact and falling to the ground.
By the way, the image is from a wall assembly placed in the corners. Every other floor or so did not have a center beam to allow for a larger window and uninterrupted view (for the CEO's in the corner office). This is an important factoid, because one of the engines of the 2nd plane went through such a window and flew a couple football fields before hitting a roof and falling to the street at Church and Murray. If that engine would have impacted at any other floor or angle, it likely would have hit a hollow box column and not have flown its path outside the building. [I once did the math; an exit velocity as low as 122 mph -- down from 500 mph impact velocity as per radar -- would have been sufficient to go the distance.]
Say what you will about the make and model of that engine maybe not matching that of the alleged commercial aircraft or that larger pieces of aircraft debris were not serial number matched to maintenance records of the alleged commercial aircraft. That is a different argument and probably valid.
Real aircraft (whether or not the alleged commercial aircraft) were involved at the WTC. The damage and observations were all physics compliant when the structure of the towers, the structure of the planes, and the high-velocity physics were properly described.
//
x210 Andy Christensen : Thanks for taking so much time and many words to explain nothing
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges Yeah, but no debris at my point of impact, Thanks for taking so much time and many words to explain nothing that I am talking about.... Oh well....
Try to stick with the topic, ok?
x212 Maxwell C. Bridges : bot-ish repetition of an insignificant factoid
2022-09-16
Dear Andy-bot, My comment was addressed to Mr. Malcolm Sturrock. If he wants to engage me, he is welcome. You are not.
Andy-bot, there is another thread under this same posting where you've been making claims of "no debris at my point of impact" as if it were significant. (With high-velocity physics and being 1,000 feet in the air, this factoid is NOT significant. Given the shattering and slicing of wings, would the long-distance camera shots even be able to pick out recognizable pieces? And why does Andy-bot ignore the aircraft evidence literally surrounding the towers almost right at the point of impact, except minus 1000 feet?)
To the Andy-bot's injuncture for me to "try to stick with the topic, ok?"
Let the record show that Mr. Sturrock started this thread. The eleven paragraphs in my reply comment were directed at Mr. Sturrock's statements, so were on topic.
That being said, did your "database snippet entry" of a comment address anything from my eleven paragraphs to prove wrong or to prove not-on-topic? Nope.
Further, how did your bot-ish repetition of an insignificant factoid (that you can't even prove) of "no debris at my point of impact" stick to the topic of Mr. Sturrock's comment or the eleven paragraphs of my comment? It didn't.
Thus, Andy-bot, you are now in violation of being grossly and bot-ishly off-topic.
Go away from this thread, Andy-bot. Use the other thread to crank your "no debris @ impact" disinfo carousel. Maybe I'll engage you there.
//
x214 Maxwell C. Bridges : poison placed into the well of 9/11 Truth
2022-09-16
Dear Mr. Tim Hussey, I agree. Embarrassing that I've been a 9/11 Truther for over two decades, and so little public revelation and acceptance.
At issue in this discussion is poison placed into the well of 9/11 Truth, the whole "no planes at the WTC." It is an astroturf distraction from the real instances of insufficient plane debris (Pentagon, Shanksville). September Clues had duped me mightily on the topic for a few years, until further research & evidence combined with holes in the Clues crews defense led me to other conclusions about aircraft at the WTC.
As a favor to others who are still duped by what I was duped by, I try to correct the record for them and show the deceit that convinced them to not only believe lies but actively promote them.
The good news is that sincere humans see my rational and well-reasoned arguments, recognize where they might be wrong, and quietly disengage.
The bad news is that insincere agents and bots don't tire. Easy to trigger. Easy to plop in a curt and meaningless database entries. Do not expect engagement on anything specific from a discussion opponents comment or URL references. And that's how they're outed.
//
x216 Tim Hussey : the human condition is interesting once people realise they have been lied to
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges cheers , the human condition is interesting once people realise they have been lied to they oftern swing way into unsubstantiated Theory .
x218 Maxwell C. Bridges : "The 48 Laws of Power" (2000)
2022-09-16
Dear Mr. Tim Hussey, speaking of the human condition, it is an underlying theme in a book I've been reading: "The 48 Laws of Power" (2000).
The book is disturbing, because it advocates taking deceitful advantage of the human condition. Wish I would have read it (had it existed) when I was still in college, not so much to exercise such deceit but more so to recognize when its techniques are being used against me / us.
As I chug through this, I gotta say that the Republicans seem to have been early students of this book, because what they've been doing this century alone is many tricks from this book. Can't imagine Trump reading any book, let alone this one (864 pages), but someone put a couple of the laws into his ear early on to get what we got.
https://www.amazon.com/48-Laws-Power-Robert-Greene-ebook/dp/B0024CEZR6/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1348JZMN6X4NO&keywords=48+laws+of+power+by+robert+greene&qid=1663359619&sprefix=48+la%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-1
All the best.
//
The 48 Laws of Power
AMAZON.COM
x220 Andy Christensen : Nothing unsubstantiated about no debris at every point of impact
2022-09-16
Tim Hussey Nothing unsubstantiated about no debris at every point of impact....
x222 Tim Hussey : yep some stange stuff allright
2022-09-16
Maxwell Bridges yep some stange stuff allright
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Moon Landing Hoax
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=369131758227338&ref=sharing
Part 2: Round 9: NPT Discussions with Max Pruss
x224 Maxwell C. Bridges : wrong on all counts
2022-05-26
{mcb: Meme"CNN Closeup - Self Healing Building -Half in, half out - no break in building between fuselage and left engine. A real plane would crash against the building, its tail snap off, & fuel-filled wings explode on impact.}
The meme is disinformation. The statement is wrong on all counts: "A real plane would crash against the building, its tail snap off, & fuel-filled wings explode on impact."
The deceit in the meme is (a) to project low-velocity expectations of damage onto a high-velocity event, (b) to misuse camera technology limitations.
The high-velocity physics and the physics-complaint explanations of the materials, the building, the damage, and the limitations of the video technology used in the screen grab for the meme expose that deceit
The wall assemblies had built-in failure mechanisms with the bolts that connected them to neighboring assemblies. Didn't take as much energy to sever and push the assemblies out of the way (fuselage, engines). Once an entry path was plowed, the small amount of building content compared to more spaces of empty air would not significantly resist further penetration. And wouldn't you know it, wheel assemblies had sufficient mass and momentum that one such piece was able to rip a wall assembly off of the back side of WTC-1 to land in a lot.
Once the fuselage had plowed an entrance hole, the tail would not necessarily have snapped off, nor the wings. (And that thinking is just "SO-ooo low-velocity physics."
The (high) velocity squared term in the energy equation created energy that exceeded the structural strength of lighter materials, like the wings from the engines to the tips. Meaning, they shattered locally and would not have been expected to bounce off as cohesive wholes.
The fuel in the wings would not have ignited immediately upon having their containing wings shattered and shredded along the wall assemblies. They required an ignition source, which they didn't get until the exhaust from the plane could set upon it, after deposit in the towers. 50% of the buildings face were allocated for window slits, easily penetrated by fragments, shards, and spilled fuel. An explosion did happen.
The above image is not real (but close), and this is because of (a) camera distance from the event, (b) limits in resolution of the camera, (c) video tape limitations, (d) transmission under-sampling. In other words, this didn't start as a high resolution film-based image using a super camera lens. In making the NPT disinformation, they purposely went for grainy and messed up through multiple translations.
The hoax is foisting this up as anything but exposing the limitations of the news gathering technology of the day (e.g., video tapes), and blowing it up beyond what is truthful or real. Further, both video and more modern day digital camera technology use previous-current-and-next-images to error correct and fill data gaps in the recorded image. Remember, this is a high-velocity event and the camera far away. Data gaps in its error correction are literally being blown out of proportion in the bogus "plane half in and seemingly no wall damage." I'll bet the very next video frames caught up and show the hole.
Talking like an OG: "Why in my day, the television rabbit-ear snow was so strong when watching 1970's televison in remote Idaho, we had just enough image data to help with a picture, but it was better to close our eyes and listen as if a radio program."
The point is, imagery technogy has always been fuzzy, particularly when zoomed in from a great distance, recorded on video tape, extracted from a single frame, and blown-up some more, yet here the meme is talking as if it were an exact science depicting exactly events without glitches or errors -- "self healing building... no break in building between fuselage and left engine."
[As a deviant side-topic, glitches in camera technology in the face of radiation is why FEMA/NIST videos were suppressed and cameras/geiger counters outlawed at ground zero by the first responders in the clean-up. Recorded proof of radiation leeching off the debris pile and debril at the scrapyard.]
If memory serves me, Dr. Fetzer used to brag that the plane flew its entire length (155') through thin air in the same number of frames as it entered the building. True, and I think the number of frames was rounded up to 5. Five frames (at 24 frames a second) to depict traveling 155'. Yet those same five frames can represent a range of velocities (e.g., deceleration). The deceit attempted was to say because the number of rounded up frames was the same "thin air vs. penetrating building", the velocity was (wrong) unchanged indicating supposedly no resistance to planes,, thus no real planes. It was a faulty argument that the math on the frame rate easily debunks. Not to mention, the faulty expectation that resistance to deeper penetration would be constant (and large) even after an entrance hole was plowed.
Evidence of real aircraft at WTC, very hard to fake.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Been for more than one spin on this disnformation carousel.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
//
x226 Max Pruss : throw an empty pop can against a car door
2022-06-
The day I throw an empty pop can against a car door and it goes right through it... That's the day I'll believe the official 9/11 story...
x228 Maxwell C. Bridges : analogy is off-base and meaningless
2022-06-
Dear Mr. Max Pruss, your analogy is off-base and meaningless. It would have more meaning if your throwing arm could accelerate that pop-can to 500 mph. But even then, you are launching it at a door that has built-in failure points (e.g., hinges, latches) even without talking windows, which means your rocket pop-can could have sufficient energy to severe those failure points and simply push the door out of the way: no hole in the door required because the door is already covering a hole.
In the case of the towers, the wall assemblies had connecting bolts that did fail (as designed) and allowed those assemblies to be pushed out of the way (without actually boring holes in those assemblies.) Once a path was plowed into the buildings by severing those bolts, very little structure or content would resist further penetration. (A deceit of NPT is assuming "resistance to penetrating fuselage" would be constant and high after an impact path was plowed.)
The velocity squared term in the energy equation changes things when velocities are high, because the energy exhibited is enough to shatter materials (like of the wings). The outline of the wings against the towers was on the aluminum cladding, not on the steel wall assemblies behind that cladding. Plus, the wall assemblies had 50% of their face being zero-resistance window slits, plenty of space for sliced and shattered wing material to keep their forward momentum into the building.
I suggest you watch the Sandia F4 crash or the MythBuster Rocket-Sled videos, or even slow-motion videos of bullets hitting things.
By the way, to describe the aircraft as a pop-can is just another disinfo deceit that you've been duped by. For example, the deck of a plan (where seats are mounted) is very solid, as are the wheel assemblies and engines. Solid enough to plow aside wall assemblies from the impact side and then rip a wall assembly off of the back-side.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
x230 Max Pruss : appreciate the time you are taking to spread this misinformation
2022-06-
Maxwell Bridges I appreciate the time you are taking to spread this misinformation here but I'm quite certain that the majority of people here are awake and aware enough of simple physics, math and the way this event was planned and executed by people that had / have very much other interests... In regards of velocity and impact, it doesn't make a difference if the plane (that wasn't there) flew fast into the tower or the tower would have hit the plane. The result would be the same. The fact is, that an aluminum construction like a plane won't penetrate a steel building like this. Parts of the plane (especially wings, fuselage parts and definitely the tail section would have fallen to the ground. Planes are grounded and checked over before allowed to fly again, if they hit a bird... A bird! Because it CAN cause major damage to the fuselage/wings. If you have to much time, go to one of the border crossings or to New York City or Jersey City... There are a lot of memorials and they all got a piece of the steel beams from the WTC. Look at them and tell me again, that a wing can cut through them. Planes don't disappear into a building. Like at the Pentagon... Bunker buster rockets can do that... And have you ever been at the place in Pennsylvania... There had never been a plane either... Also the towers collapsed in free fall speed... No resistance... All your bolts failed? And the entire structure fall into small pieces and dust... 1. and last time in history that something like that happened... Next the pilots must have been VERY experienced to fly such a maneuver, because bigger planes need up to 7 seconds to respond to movements of the stick/rudder. So a bad Cessna trainee wouldn't be able to fly this plane / maneuvers and hit dead on into a small object like a tower... When you can hadle a sportboot, you can't steer a super tanker. Anyways, there is so much actual PROOF out there by now, that this whole story was a false flag operation to cash in and make the US a police state plus... So your misinformation is well appreciated and I really enjoyed reading it but it won't change THE FACT that there were no planes and if... They couldn't have cause any of what they say they did... How did WTC7 collapsed? After a reporter already reported the collapse... And please... Don't come with this structure failure story. It's obvious that it was a controlled demolition. Compare videos... Also a fire couldn't have done this. Not a fire like this smoking nothing... Check Greenfell Towers...
x232 Maxwell C. Bridges : "a solid immovable steel block with constant resistance to penetration across its entire length, breadth, and thickness."
2022-06-
Dear Mr. Max Pruss, You wrote: "I'm quite certain that the majority of people here are awake and aware enough of simple physics, math..."
Your certainty is misplaced, and the majority of the people here -- including and especially you -- do not have a good grasp of math or physics.
You wrote: "The fact is, that an aluminum construction like a plane won't penetrate a steel building like this."
That is not a fact by any shape or form. Your first fallacy is in conflating the phrase "a steel building" to falsely mean "a solid immovable steel block with constant resistance to penetration across its entire length, breadth, and thickness." The towers were not solid blocks. Even the three box columns of a wall assembly were not solid steel; they were hollow whose box wall thickness decreased as elevation in the towers increased.
The wall assemblies had built-in failure points with the bolts that connected them to one another. The energy required to sever connecting bolts is much less than required to cut the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly.
The analogy is that when police break down your solid front door, the wood frame for the latches and hinges fail allowing entry long before a battering ram puts a physical hole in your solid door. If they can knock your door off its hinges or destroy the latch, they won't need a lot of additional effort to push the door open and penetrate your dwelling.
You wrote: "Parts of the plane (especially wings, fuselage parts and definitely the tail section) would have fallen to the ground."
Your fallacy here is in conflating low-velocity physics expectations with a high-velocity event. You confuse the damage inflicted at "parking lot velocities" with velocities that are two orders of magnitude greater. You've learned nothing from the Sandia F4 crash videos or the MythBuster rocket-sled videos.
So how does the velocity-squared term in the energy equation change the observed damage when the velocity is, say, 500 mph? The energy involved is sufficient to shatter materials locally. Your fallacy is in thinking that wings would remain as cohesive wholes just bouncing off the building. For the record when you study videos of the impact, the wings shattered locally and THEN many of those shards did bounce off and fall to the ground.
When the energy of the high velocity impact (of the fuselage, engines) severed the connecting bolts attaching one wall assembly with its neighbors, your continued physics fallacy is in discounting that it doesn't take much additional energy to push the disconnected and now unattached assembly out of the way. Once out of the way and a path plowed, your continued fallacy is in thinking that somehow the tail would hit something and fall as a cohesive whole to the ground. No, if a path had been plowed, momentum would carry the tail into the structure.
[When you mention the damage birds can do, what you are really doing is proving that the Pentagon plane did not impact the building, because clipping those six light poles would have crippled the plane and had its pieces spread all over the lawn; it certainly does not bode well for a surgical strike on the Office of Naval Intelligence, their investigators, and their records into the missing $2.3 trillion.]
You charged: "If you have to much time, go to one of the border crossings or to New York City or Jersey City... There are a lot of memorials and they all got a piece of the steel beams from the WTC. Look at them and tell me again, that a wing can cut through them."
There you go again with your physics fallacies. You keep implying that "the wings cut through those steel beams."
First of all, you need to clarify what steel beams you are referencing, because the hollow box columns of a wall assembly are a different beast than the steel beams of the inner core.
Secondly, the wings cut the aluminum cladding affixed to the wall assemblies; the wings did ~not~ cut any of the hollow box columns of any wall assembly.
Thirdly, the engines and fuselage also didn't physically cut much of anything in terms of steel beams or even hollow box columns. What they cut were connecting bolts and then easily had energy to spare to push wall assemblies out of the way (and in cases bend certain hollow box columns.)
Your inaccurate description of the physical damage -- what was severed, what was bent, what was pushed around -- is contributing to your fallacies and leading you (by disinfo design) to false conclusions.
You wrote: "Planes don't disappear into a building."
Why not? If a path has been plowed through the impacted surface, what great structure, content, or resistance would be allegedly present to prevent the rest of the fuselage from entering the building? The designer of the towers described an impacting plane as "a pencil piercing a bug screen." And so it was.
The rest of your comment does not support an accurate description of physics at the towers. 9/11 had four separate events, and you do no one any favors by conflating them all together.
FTR, I believe that the Pentagon plane flew over the building, and that a missile (possibly launched from a construction trailer) did the damage, and that Shanksville probably had no plane crash at all. Insufficient evidence. And this is precisely why they spun up the blatant disinformation of allegedly no planes at the WTC. You fell for it. (So did I, for a few years over a decade ago, until I persisted in my research and found the many areas where they were being deceitful.)
Also FTR, I'm a sincere seeker of Truth. Just because I'm calling out blatant disinformation of NPT@WTC does ~not~ mean that I'm not a 9/11 Truther.
You asked: "How did WTC7 collapsed?"
Whereas I know the dangers of conflating the evidence of one event of that day with any of the other events, this is one case where I believe the mechanisms of destruction on the towers were also used on WTC-4 (leveling the main edifice at a clean line with its North Annex while preserving the gold vaults underneath), WTC-6 (putting a crater in it while sparing enough of its vaults for a FEMA photographer to claim it was emptied beforehand), WTC-5, and WTC-7.
The mechanisms were late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices: conventional kick-starter charge for the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the heat requisite for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (e.g., DEW) cone-shape, upwards. I estimate 4 FGNW per detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels per tower.
I've done my homework. Here's my write-up.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
At any rate, your faulty WTC physics had been debunked. Real planes were involved at the WTC. Here's ample physical evidence of that, which is something you have yet to acknowledge, let alone address. For shame, for shame.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
Part 3: Round 10: NPT Discussions with Daniel M. Plesse, Mike Johnson, Lisa Brooks, Jerome Grogan, Edward Irwin, Cole Anderson, Noel Kreutzmann
x234 Maxwell C. Bridges : meme is deceitful disinformation
2022-08-23
2022-08-23
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911disclosureproject/posts/655205745560536/?comment_id=655322448882199&reply_comment_id=655523298862114¬if_id=1661258620809494¬if_t=group_comment_mention
The meme is flawed because it tries to equate the narrow width of the actual plowed open hole on the side of the towers with the wide width of the wingspan, while ignoring the fact that the wings near their tips did leave impressions on the side of the building (e.g., on the aluminum cladding) even if not possessing the energy/mass to plow a hole through the steel hollow box columns of the wall assemblies at those locations.
The fuselage and engines plowed a path through the wall assemblies, but it was a path made by pushing things out of the way, severing the connecting bolts between wall assemblies, but not necessarily cutting and severing the box columns of those assemblies.
The wings left their impressions on the tower for their full wingspan.
So this meme is deceitful disinformation meant to confuse the weak minded. Don't be weak minded.
//
x236 Daniel M. Plesse : no evil [deceitful disinformation] intent
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges I don't think there is evil [deceitful disinformation] intent here Max.
So even with the impressions what do we get? Are we still short? I think NIST said it was short by 30 feet. Photo below
x238 Maxwell C. Bridges : where this genre is heading
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, For the sake of discussion, let's say the wing-tip to wing-tip impressions on the aluminum cladding was 30 feet short of the alleged commercial aircraft. The most you can deduce from this is that the impacting plane was not the alleged commercial aircraft, and that premise is supported by them not serial-number identifying the larger parts (e.g., landing gear, engine found outside the tower footprints) to the alleged commercial aircraft.
It is still deceit and a ruse. Probably many reasons why the alleged commercial aircraft was swapped out, and for the lying.
However, 30 feet short in wingspan does not equate to the faulty premise of "no planes impacting the towers", which is where this genre is heading. THAT is the falsehood that I am cutting off.
Real aircraft were involved at the towers; and if CGI were involved at all, it was to mask the actual aircraft into appearing on video as the alleged commercial aircraft.
Here's the evidence of real aircraft that no NPTer has ever bothered to rationally address, because they knew NPT is a lie and this truth defeats it.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
x240 Daniel M. Plesse : witnesses of a switch
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges I have tons of video evidence and photo evidence, witnesses of a switch.. This photo shows the cell tower was being pinged for far too long for a plane flying in a straight line directly into the towers. This could mean each plane had a function and job to do on 9/11!!!..
[mcb: Meme with cellphone tower pings.]
x242 Maxwell C. Bridges : a plane swap is different from "no planes at all"
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, You have "tons of video evidence and photo evidence"... of what? You hint "witnesses of a switch." So be it, and I'm not debating that point. In fact, I've even alluded to other instances where the significant pieces of the wreckage (landing gear, engines) were not serial numbered identified to match the alleged commercial aircraft. The wing span impression on the aluminum cladding being 30 feet short is possibly another.
The salient point is that a plane swap is different from "no planes at all", which, if you look at other discussion threads under this posting, is the deceitful direction that a bunch of duped useful idiots want to understand things.
My point is that there is evidence of real aircraft at the WTC, and some of it is posted (and not discussed by you) above.
//
x244 Mike Johnson : slicing completely through the building
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges The video shows the plane, including the fragile wing tips slicing completely through the building. No debris falling off. NIST has shown themselves to be completely incompetent or completely complicit.
x246 Maxwell C. Bridges : does not mean that that no aircraft were involved
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, You claim the videos shows the plane's wing tips slicing completely through the building, so you defend that claim. URL to the video and elapsed time into the video when you say that this happened.
Because I'm a fair and and reasonable fellow, for the sake of your argument, let us assume that somehow your video substantiation does show the plane's wing tips slicing through both the aluminum cladding as well as the hollow box columns of the wall assemblies, which is your premise, right?
Under this assumption, lots of pictorial evidence after the event show conclusively that the wing tips damaged only the aluminum cladding and did not slash a slice through the wall assemblies. The most you could conclude from that is that the Naudet video was altered in post production, CGI, and all that and they screwed up.
It does not mean that that no aircraft were involved. Real aircraft were involved at the towers, with tons of evidence that CGI faking can't explain without expanding the conspiracy unreasonably and illogically to "those landing gear pieces were planted; the ejection of the engine out the corner, its flying a considerable distance to bounce off the roof of a building, and its tumbling to the street below to be found near (or even under) scaffolding were faked." Doesn't matter that the engine's flight after leaving the corner of a tower is completely physics compliant. [I've done the math; an exit velocity as low as 122 mph could send it that distance, as observed and videoed from multiple perspectives.]
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
At any rate, I am interested in seeing the video with a time stamp that proves your contention of the wing tips slicing through the wall assemblies. Meanwhile, consider the link also landing in your court to reasonably explain.
BTW. For three years over a decade ago, I was totally duped by September Clues and their CGI premise. Alas, the owners and participants of the Clues forum were less than genuine, causing me to re-evaluate the NPT premise as outlined by them and to me finding it deceitful. Furthermore, then I found further evidence like the above punch-out material. And then in a rather funny and ironic way, discussions about (disinfo) Dr. Wood ended up exposing the Clues forum and their NPT hobby-horse as disinformation.
How so? Those on the (September) Clues Forum held the premise that "~all~ 9/11 imagery was faked; none of it was real." High school sophomore English class taught us that "over-generalizations are bad, because it only takes one exception to disprove." They were the ones saying that every image was faked. At the time, I was also an active champion of Dr. Wood's work that I wanted assistance in vetting or debunking it. [Later, I debunked her work on my own, but I digress.] Those Clues disinfo agents said "we don't need to debunk Dr. Wood's work, because it is based entirely on fake imagery." Being open-minded, I replied: "It would be a great service to the 9/11 truth community if you would point out the fakeness of these images -- came from Dr. Wood's website and were published in her book." Because if the images are legitimately faked and Dr. Wood didn't now this, she could apologize, but also, she wasn't the only one using those images, so many others were deceived as well. "Please help me finding what is wrong with the images." Because CGI and digital editing were these guys only "super-power."
Long story short, they did not even attempt the assigned task of debunking the images, which in turn could have debunked Dr. Wood's work. [I was banned before the assignment could play out, and as you can see, I'm a respectful participant who takes the high road, a tactic that can only be hard to combat.]
What I learned from that episode (which has been repeated), is that an agent assigned to promote disinfo premise A will never expend the effort to debunk another disinfo premise B, even if the premises A and B were totally different (e.g., no planes versus Woodsian DEW).
If they were honest seekers of truth but were simply not-yet-learned on why their premise A might be disinfo, they should have had no problems following truth and debunking premise B [which they were already calling disinfo without proof.] In fact, were they sincere, they would have relished the task of debunking falsehoods, most certainly in premises that weren't their own and that could help their own premise.
But if they were agent actors assigned to prevent revelation of Truth by championing "bat-shit-crazy premises" -- one group for disinfo premise A and another for B --, they might have ultimately the same boss (several rungs up the chain of command) or the same agenda: poison the 9/11 Truth Well. In which case, the agent of premise A would be ordered not to pursue seriously the debunking of premise B (or intellectually grappling with agents of premise B), because it would undermine the coordinated disinfo efforts.
Don't believe me? AE9/11Truth (of which I am a vetted member) peddles at least a couple of disinfo premises (NT, Pentagon plane, Shanksville plane) that I'll just label A. Dr. Wood's peddles DEW poorly that I'll label B. When AE9/11Truth was given the opportunity to legitimately debunk the B's book, they screwed up; they gave no indication that they even smelled the ink from Wood's book's crack in their short word count, and spent a third of that promoting NT. [And they repeated a similar folly in trying to debunk 9/11 nuclear involvement, which is my hobby-horse.]
Summary, I was looking for my re-purposing of those Clues discussions; I didn't find them on my blog, because I might not have promoted them from my website, today dying and figuratively on its last breaths. [A story of itself. I saved my source and, when I overcome my procrastination, will one day revive it hosted somewhere else. Just a pity that free speech was attacked and undermined in the way it was.] I'm not finding them on my website, but if you request, I'll renew my search and maybe you can view them in that venue before it dies a papercut death. Only if you are a glutton for punishment.
Meanwhile, though, your interest seems to be in NPT. So let me give a goto-URL to my blog where I've re-purposed discussions on that theme. With blog in hand, you don't need my website to prove that I've been around the 9/11 block, been duped by several later-proven disinfo premises, and persisted in my search for Truth.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
My detractors have sometimes labeled me OCD. The blog ought to leave no doubt for what my dying website captured but don't yet point you to.
Helps to know with whom you are have discussions. (And that I come prepared.)
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
CRYPTOME.ORG
x248 Mike Johnson : not going to read all that
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges I'm not going to read all that. The video I refer to is imho CGI. It was splattered all over the news. I believe no planes crashed on 9-11.
x250 Maxwell C. Bridges : reconcile the contradiction between the evidence and your beliefs
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, A great counter-argument to a reasoned position IS NOT "I'm not going to read all that."
And when you make a claim and are asked to substantiate it with a URL to the video in question, you hurt your position & your integrity by not putting forth the effort. I'm trying to get on the same page as you and let you convince me of your points, but can't do that without a URL and time stamp. FAIL.
Worst of all, even if you stay steadfast with your statement "I'm not going to read all that", the destination of the URL that I posted to substantiate my views is still clearly visible even in a rolled-up "... See more" state.
That URL has evidence of real aircraft involvement at the WTC. You say that you believe no planes crashed on 9/11. I'm asking you to reconcile the contradiction between the evidence my URL presented and your beliefs.
BTW, the discussion is limited to NPT@WTC, because I don't believe planes impacted the Pentagon or Shanksville. So on those fronts, we're on the same page. The disinfo is NPT@WTC.
//
x252 Maxwell C. Bridges : Failure to attempt such even lamely pegs you as a bot
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, My apologies for a second comment quick on the heels of my last. In my 9/11 journies, a tell of an agent-bot was an inability to follow links. Another tell is an inability and/or unwillingness to read what their discussion opponent brought forth, let alone to comment on it meaningfully.
Being naive and trusting are two of my super-powers. Right now, I trust that you are sincere albeit misguided in your WTC NPT beliefs. However, I won't know for sure until you follow the link to the Punch-Out page and then discuss how the information there relates or doesn't to your premise of NPT. [Hint: Failure to attempt such even lamely pegs you as a bot. Prove you aren't a bot and copy a quote (or image URL) from that URL and paste it in your comment as a starting point for our discussion.]
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
P.S. In an earlier posting, you wrote: "No debris falling off." Factually wrong. Your confuse your understanding of low-velocity physics where maybe things as cohesive wholes (like wings or tails) bounce off. High-velocities physics tends to shatter materials, which was observed even by far-away cameras as seemingly "dust" and "scraps" at the impact point.
Also you wrote: "NIST has shown themselves to be completely incompetent or completely complicit."
The latter.
//
x254 Mike Johnson : I don't care what you think
2022-08-23
You talk too much. And you value your opinion way more than I do. I don't care what you think.
x256 Maxwell C. Bridges : you don't value YOUR OWN OPINION, which is why you FAIL to defend it
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, I haven't uttered a single word to you in this FB forum; it's all been by keyboard, so your comment -- "You talk too much" -- FAILS in its intended agent-bot snow-job purposes right out of the gate.
The issue is not about any perceived value that you might have in my opinion. Clearly you don't, and weren't expected to, because your task was to prove it wrong anyway.
No, the issue is that you don't value YOUR OWN OPINION at all, which is why you FAIL to defend it in any reasonably way that even lurker-readers can't help but conclude is very agent-bot-ish of you.
You don't care what I think; nor do you care what YOU THINK. Because you're an agent-bot and neither care nor think.
You chimed into the discussion with next to nothing in content, and defend that nothingness with again next to nothing in content.
Go way, Mr. Mike Johnson. Your bot-icism isn't needed here anymore. Thank you for participating and validating the continued agency poisoning of the 9/11 well with agent-bot drivel and proven disinformation.
//
x258 Daniel M. Plesse : plane wing was in the room with him
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges Stanley Praimnath said the plane wing was in the room with him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdpMt38ip8
I am not sure if the statement is in this video however.
Stanley Praimnath: Remembering 9/11
YOUTUBE.COM
x260 Daniel M. Plesse : the dust and scraps
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges "dust and scraps" I would be interested in seeing that. So far the only photo during impact shows NONE of this. Max please circle the dust and scraps, maybe I missed it, thanks ..
May be an image of sky
x262 Maxwell C. Bridges : from the distance and the camera resolution & frame rate, they appear as dust flakes
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, the frame you chose to highlight only shows the fuselage has having already impacted and penetrated the towers. Advance a few frames for when the lighter wings impact and "seem to pass" into the towers in a "dust cloud", you'll see them getting shattered and their scraps falling to the ground.
But from the distance and the camera resolution & frame rate, they appear as dust flakes.
From the distance, you'd have a hard time even seeing individual pieces the size head or smaller falling unless there were a group of them.
//
x264 Daniel M. Plesse : not a frame of a video
2022-08-23
Dear Maxwell Bridges this is not a frame of a video but the only known photo of the aircraft hitting the building as it hits. No video exists at this location. Is it the first time you have seen this photo ? There should be more activity and no one reported seeing any activity like a crash. It has always been "pass right through". I have not seen any "dust cloud" maybe that video would be helpful. Also new video has been located. Are you up-to-date?
x266 Maxwell C. Bridges : Refer to 6:44 in the following Evan Fairbanks' video of the 2nd plane
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, Refer to 6:44 in the following Evan Fairbanks' video of the 2nd plane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6_8WAIGb4
//
x268 Maxwell C. Bridges : gross misunderstanding of the physics of the towers, the planes, and high-velocities
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan, You would do well to review what I've been posting to others in this discussion thread. And certainly the links that I post, because I've been around the NPT@WTC merry-go-round too many times.
You wrote: "Planes disappearing without parts crumbling."
That is factually wrong and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the physics of the towers, the planes, and high-velocities.
The towers had built-in failure points in the form of connecting bolts that attached the wall assemblies to one another. The energy to sever these is orders of magnitudes less than required to "slice the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly." The point here is that the entrance hole shows assemblies pushed and plowed out of the way by the fuselage and engines.
As for the wings which were of lighter material, the energy of high velocity physics is sufficiently great to locally shatter materials, which is observed in all videos of the wings. To expect the wings to remain as cohesive holes as if it were a parking lot fender bender is to grossly not understand physics.
As for the "nose-in/nose-out" spiel, that's nonsense. Sure, the gas cloud may briefly look in a frame or two like the nose of the aircraft, what you are really experiencing is hypnosis and not proof of anything.
Don't get me wrong. CGI may have been involved, if nothing else to paste an image of a commercial airline over the aircraft actually used. There are four different versions of the "helicopter shot": (1) shows the approaching second plane and then backside of impact; (2) shows nothing approaching and then the same backside of impact; (3) shows an orb approaching and then the backside of the impact; (4) shows same perspective of building with background sky masked and a different plane path and then the same backside of impact.
YES. Digital manipulation of imagery did happen. But not to the extent that would rule out actual physical aircraft (at the towers).
Here is the counter-argument to "no planes at WTC". Explain the evidence.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
BTW, I was a NPTer for a few years over a decade ago. The above, plus a 3D overlay analysis of NYC with a few dozen amateur videos of flight path all being co-linear, is what forced me to recant and apologize.
I believe NPT@WTC was spun up to caste a shadow on the real instances of no plane impacts at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
//
x270 Lisa Brooks : So interesting. Agree
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges So interesting. Agree, I believe no plane hit the pentagon on shanksville...
x272 Jerome Grogan : built in failure points
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges
"planes disappearing without parts crumbling". You state that is factually wrong. I am referring to the videos. Some of them show no impact whatsoever. This is undeniable. You state that this demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the physics of the towers, the planes, and high velocities. I'm stating what some of the videos show and make no commentary on the aforementioned matters.
You state the towers had built in failure points. Do you have any source for this assertion? If so provide it.
Your statement about the plane's wings is incoherent. As is your allegation of hypnosis.
x274 Maxwell C. Bridges : what looks like "dust" in the smoke is really shattered fragments
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan, You wrote "planes disappearing without parts crumbling", and now you say you were referring to the videos. What videos? Provide a link and a time stamp to what you were referring. You made the claim; you defend the claim.
Furthermore, "parts crumbling" isn't very specific. I pointed out that the wings shattered. There is video proof of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ_7v2A
A good one is at 6:26. The camera is quite some distance away, so what looks like "dust" in the smoke is really shattered fragments (of the wings and aluminum cladding) falling to the ground (at 6:38). Pay attention, because the distance can deceive you on the size of the "particles".
The gross misunderstaning of physics is the expectation of many NPTer's that (a) the wings would bounce off as cohesive whole pieces [as opposed to shattered fragments], (c) the fuselage somehow crumpling on impact [when pushing wall assemblies out of the way and penetrating the structure would mask that].
Are you contesting that bolts were used to connect the wall assemblies to one another? If so, starting at 1:04 (through 1:18) in the following video is that proof. The square holes at the top and bottom of each hollow box column of an assembly had a purpose to allow access to get at the bolts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_otwjGvSPxA
If you agree that massive bolts were used but not that they were "built-in failure points', then how would it be achieved that a plane impacting the tower, according to its designer, would be like a pen piercing a screen door?
Whether or not those bolts were "designed-in failure points", that is what they served as, because the energy to sever those bolts was less than required to cut through the three hollow box columns. And when you study the pictures of the damage of both towers, it shows wall assemblies pushed out of the way and only in rare cases were individual box columns cut/broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzEMFkW6i8
1:29 shows a worker standing on top of a wall assembly. The square holes in the side were for access to the bolts that connected them together.
You wrote: "Your statement about the plane's wings is incoherent. As is your allegation of hypnosis."
You're just saying that. Is it because you've never had a physics class? What part of "shatter" do you not understand? What gives your little noggin trouble in understanding it?
I wrote (or should have correctly written): "the energy of high velocity physics is sufficiently great to locally shatter materials, which is observed in all videos of the wings. To expect the wings to remain as cohesive wholes as if it were a parking lot fender bender is to grossly not understand physics." [My bad: I originally wrote "cohesive holes" instead of "cohesive wholes." Sorry.]
Assuming constant mass, when velocities are low, energy involved is, say, low. Materials might not even be affected. As velocity increases, maybe deformation appears (like a bent car bumper). But as velocities increase and subsequently energies exponentially increase. Instead of bending, materials break. Still you might recognize pieces from their original purpose. At really large velocities, materials can shatter locally; they don't bend or break leaving cohesive wholes; they are shattered into pieces. Consider this lessons learned from the Sandia F4 crash and the MythBusters Rocket Sled videos that it is your homework assignment to find, watch, and study.
//
x276 Cole Anderson : Throw a beer can through a brick wall
2022-08-23
Throw a beer can through a brick wall. Physics folks it didn't exist on 9/11
x278 Maxwell C. Bridges : Don't confuse low-velocity physics with high-velocity physics
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Cole Anderson, Don't confuse low-velocity physics (arm throwing a beer can, 90+mph only if you were a major league pitcher) with high-velocity physics (500+ mph). If we assume the beer can had beer in it, the brick wall would suffer a damaging hole.
Whether or not the beer can went through the created hole is a different matter. Chances are, like high-speed videos of lead bullets impacting steel plates, the can/bullet shatters itself on the impact side while transferring energy into the impacted surface that causes a "plug" of that surface to separate from the rest of the material leaving a hole the shape of can/bullet.
//
x280 Edward Irwin : maximum speed at 1,000 feet is 414 mph
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges Boeing maximum speed at 1,000 feet is 414 mph. At 35,000 cruising height it's 528 mph. Pilots' for 9/11 Truth have published all of this for decades.
No photo description available.
x282 Maxwell C. Bridges : not a hard and fast limit, but a safety limit
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Edward Irwin, First of all, that is a maximum speed of 414 mph at level flight at elevation 1000 ft. That is not a hard and fast limit, but a safety limit. Secondly, the plane was descending.
Thirdly and most importantly, I'm not arguing that the aircraft was the alleged commercial aircraft, and neither was the original posting.
What the posting pointed out was that the impression of the wing span on the aluminum cladding was 30 ft short of the alleged commercial aircraft. The FAA made no (public) attempts to match serial numbers of discovered pieces of wreckage with the alleged aircraft. I recall discussions many years ago that the engine found at Church and Murray wasn't of the make and model of the alleged commercial aircraft.
If the planes weren't the alleged commercial aircraft, all bets are off regarding what maximum safe velocity it could travel. A hardened military aircraft of similar size might have a higher velocity.
What I am trying to head off at the pass is the disinfo that no aircraft were involved at all at the WTC. They were. In fact, for the multiple events going on, the WTC aircraft were required and needed to be seen and recorded by lots of witnesses, else the destruction of the towers would not be so easy to explain away. The disinfo of NPT@WTC was spun up to distract the public with the real instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
Hope we're on the same page.
//
x284 Cole Anderson : cannot do 500 mph in low altitude
2022-08-23
Planes are made of aluminum not steel and cannot do 500 mph in low altitude
x286 Maxwell C. Bridges : 500 mph at impact is indeed plausible
2022-08-23
Dear Mr. Cole Anderson, factually wrong again. Planes have titanium engines and sheet metal wings. What is the landing gear made of? Doesn't really matter what the aircraft were made of, because the velocity squared term in the energy equation doesn't lie. High velocity impacts have literally exponentially larger energy than low velocity.
If the plane is descending -- as these were -- then 500 mph at impact is indeed plausible. And because you are being all loosey-goosey with your language by not adding qualifiers, military planes can do 500+ mph at low altitude level flying. That is the exception that debunks your bot-logic. DEBUNKED.
//
x288 Noel Kreutzmann : all sizes and velocity can not DO NOT pass through steel & concrete
2022-08-23
Maxwell Bridges Wrong again. what metal used in Boeing 767 > Alloy 7050 is an aluminum alloy similar in composi- tion to 7150, the improved aluminum alloy used on the 767 upper wing surface. Alloy 7050-T73 is resistant.. link here: http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1982/ICAS-82-2.2.1.pdf Who is paying you? You obviously are not nor never have been a pilot flying a Boeing 767 passenger plane. ALL experienced pilots disagree with you and have published their experiences proving the narrative you describe is preposterous. BIRD DAMAGE TO NOSE OF BOEING here:
Maxwell Bridges Planes of all sizes and velocity can not DO NOT pass through steel & concrete.
x290 Maxwell C. Bridges : the case that the alleged commercial aircraft were not involved
2022-08-23
Dear Noel Kreutzmann, You seem to be doing a good job of making the case that the alleged commercial aircraft were not involved. I'm on board with that, for lots of other data points in the ruse. However, I am not on board with the premise that no aircraft were involved at the WTC.
If you want to tally a point from me not knowing the exact metals used to construct the fuselage and wings, please do. My bad.
However, I'll tally a point from you for pointing to bird damage to the (weak and hollow) nose cone of a Boeing and implying that the entire rest of the plane structure were just as flimsy, and for posting pictures of Cesna lodged in a building. The latter was probably taking off and would have had a velocity easily 1/10 of the radar velocity of the WTC aircraft.
You wrote a completely physics-ignorant comment: "Planes of all sizes and velocity can not DO NOT pass through steel & concrete."
You imply that the towers were solid steel and concrete blocks throughout their entire length, breadth, and thickness, meaning that the resistance to penetration would have been constant and there was no empty air beyond and inside the wall assemblies and between the concrete floor slabs (where otherwise we'd say offices and cubicles were and humans worked.)
For the record, even the wall assemblies were NOT SOLID STEEL, lest you forget the window slits. More importantly, the box columns of the wall assemblies were hollow. The thickness of the sides of those box columns varied depending on the height they were positioned in the towers.
If you study the damage, where the fuselage and engines hit, the wall assemblies were PUSHED out of the way. The metal that failed was not the composition of the wall assemblies, but the bolts that connected them together allowing them to be pushed in like a door. Yes, a few hollow box columns got cut and several others got bent, but by in large the plane DID NOT PASS THROUGH SOLID STEEL as much as it severed bolts and created a door that it pushed through.
Once the towers' face was breached, what resistance was there from the inside to prevent further pentration of the fuselage (including front landing gear)? The concrete floors were 12+ feet apart and allowed plenty of room for them to get pushed up or down but out of the way of the penetrating fuselage.
Beyond the engines on the wings, the towers' wall assemblies (other than through the window slits) were not passed through. The aluminum cladding got damaged and knocked off leaving an outline of the plane (and to disinfo agents the false impression of penetration), but the steel wall assemblies behind that cladding were in tact; no penetration. The wings, on the other hand, were shattered, which is to be expected with high velocity impacts.
So, when you describe the physics of the towers improperly, you come to wrong conclusions.
What metal were used in the landing gear and engines? Doesn't really matter. They were solid enough to not just help push the impacted wall assembly out of the way, pass through office furnishings, and hit the back wall. In one case (see images at link below), a tire and fragments of a wheel assembly from an aircraft was lodged between two of the hollow box columns of a wall assembly that it tore off the back side and fell to the street.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
There is plenty of physical evidence of real aircraft involvment at the WTC (and hardly any at the Pentagon and Shanksville, giving rise to the strawman disinfo NPT@WTC as a distraction.)
By the way, the YouTube videos for the Sandia F4 crash into a solid concrete block and the Mythbuster Rocket Sled provide the needed insight (a) to explain the damage at the WTC and (b) to debunk the Pentagon plane's alleged flight path and clipping light poles.
Energy equation: E=m*(v^2)
At really high velocities, the energy is sufficient to shatter materials (like wings), as shown at the towers. Clipping even break-away light poles at that high velocity would have crippeled the Pentagon plane and make it unable to make a precision strike at ground floor where the ONI was investigating missing $2.3 trillion. The poles would have had to been staged for a real Pentagon aircraft, or to allow for a missile; too bad that the spotted Pentagon plane flew over the Pentagon.
//
x292 Maxwell C. Bridges : the towers did need planes to hit them as the starting point for the ruse
2022-08-23
Dear Rare 9/11 Facts, you wrote:
"These building demolitions remind us something about 9/11. They didn't need any plane to hit them."
However, the towers did need planes to hit them as the starting point for the ruse. It needed to have lots of witnesses and cameras observing the planes, although the planes did not destroy the towers. All the more so WTC needed observable planes, because the Pentagon was not hit by a plane and neither was the crater in Shanksville.
Stated another way, the implosion of the entire WTC complex would have been even more suspicious than it was (to the non-science-challenged) if actually observed planes didn't account for "the initiation of the collapse" somehow. Without help, buildings don't just go to dust.
The Pentagon surroundings had some 90 surveillance videos confiscated by the FBI, but none of them except 7 inclusive FRAMES from a parking camera were released. Why? Because they needed a precise strike on the Office of Naval Intelligence (investigating the missing $2.3 billion), and a real plane flying the alleged course clipping the light poles introduced a huge amount of risk of the plane being crippled, coming apart, and not achieving that surgical strike needed. [The actual plane flew over, and it was more like a missile-launch from a construction trailer and/or planted explosives.] Thus this ruse needed to be covered for by footage of the WTC (2nd) plane broadcast over and over and over again to hypnotize the message.
IMPORTANT TIDBIT FROM VIDEOS. Although you can configure conventional explosives to do amazing things, (a) that requires lots of preparation time, and (b) the results of chemical-based devices exploding is very loud. Although NIST's Dr. Shyam Sunder was deceitful in his scope-limited research and presentation, the one nugget of truth that he uttered when debunking chemical-based explosives achieving the observed pulverization was that it would have been deafeningly loud within 1/2 mile. Hearing loss was not one of 9/11 ailments of survivors and witnesses.
Here's the black hole: what government agencies failed to investigate; what the alleged "9/11 Truther" Dr. Steven Jones failed to do a literature review on when he attempted to debunk all 9/11 nuclear devices; what Dr. Judy Wood missed with her (correct) DEW aspirations; what the traditional 9/11 nukers didn't investigate (proposing instead ludicrous single deep under ground nuclear detonations for each tower) because they were disinfo...
Dr. Andre Gsponer wrote about Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) in the decade leading up to 9/11. Here's something he wrote (before either Dr. Jones or Dr. Woods made their disinfo attempts), peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
DISCLAIMER: To my knowledge, Dr. Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11. Moreover, the work above is a "direction headed" and not a "goal achieved", because he is speculating about pure fusion devices with his FGNW speculation. The actual 9/11 FGNW were late-3rd/early-4th generation devices, meaning they were hybrid fission-fusion and took the old "neutron bomb" that was fear-mongered in the 1980's to its appropriate next levels.
Based on the observed destruction, I speculate per detonation level 4 devices planted on the outer four sides of the inner core, their cone-shaped output aimed upwards and away from the core (to keep the core stable for both the duration of their ignition and for lower devices); 6-12 detonation levels.
As hybrid devices, a conventional chemical based charge kick started the fission stage. What many say were "squibs" along the face of the towers ahead of the pulverizing destructive wave was kick-back from this ignition. The fission stage was small and its sole purpose was to generate sufficient heat for the fusion stage. Evidence of fission exists in the dust, but it was not in the quantities expected from large fission devices (which is the strawmen would-be nuke-debunkers used.)
Options for the fusion stage were: (1) Contain the highly energetic neutrons, let them bounce around the core and chain react into a huge explosion like the movies of nuclear tests; ruled out because wasn't observed as such. (2) Let the highly energetic neutrons just go in a spherical or semi-spherical fashion -- the very premise of the old neutron bomb. Would have resulted in casualties well outside the WTC towers. (3) Let the highly energetic neutrons out in a targeted fashion, cone-shaped aimed upwards; was observed.
The kick-starter charge was audible, but the fission and fusion stages would not necessarily have been loud as they ignited; the crumbling structures made noise. The salient point is that conventional chemical-based explosives use the medium of air -- sudden and violent changes in air pressure -- as a chief part of its destruction and would have been very loud.
These late-3rd/early-4th generation hybrid devices? Only the kick-starter charge makes a sound, but because it isn't used for destruction and isn't planted "everywhere" (as a conventional controlled demolition would require), it is not a deafening ordeal to survivors and witnesses.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment