Maxwell C. Bridges
2024-12-11
This article defends the premise that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were deployed as the primary mechanisms of destruction in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. Discussions from 2023-09 through 2024-12.
Expand All Parts / Hide All Parts
Expand All Sections / Hide All Sections
This part documents my attempts to have my FGNW work published on the International Center for 9/11 Justice from 2023-09 until 2025-01. Three versions were submitted, and version 1 and version 3 have subsequently been posted to the blog.
9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
9/11 Exotic Nuclear Weapons (Version 3)
x2 Maxwell C. Bridges : Submission to International Center for 9/11 Justice
2023-09-20
First name: Maxwell
Last name: Bridges
Email: m.c.bruecke@gmail.com
Additional Comments
My 9/11 hobby-horse premise is that (multiple) FGNW were responsible for most of the WTC destruction on 9/11. I would like to have this discussed, even debunked if you can, because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this topic.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
This is a predecessor version of the above, but is useful for how it debunks nanothermite as well as several official reports.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
x4 Ted Walter : will be in touch with you soon
2023-09-20
International Center for 9/11 Justice
Dear Maxwell,
Thank you for contacting the International Center for 9/11 Justice. We greatly appreciate your interest in our work and we will be in touch with you soon.
If your request is time-sensitive, please call us at (720) 507-1135.
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
Executive Director
International Center for 9/11 Justice
x6 Ted Walter : Thank you for your interest in publishing in the Debated Topics Forum
2023-09-20
forum@ic911.org
IC911 Debated Topics Forum
Thank you for your interest in publishing in the Debated Topics Forum.
Your subject matter and analysis appear to be well suited to the Forum. However, to be published in the Forum, it must be a new paper and must be around 2,000 words or less. Would you be able to fashion your analysis into a paper of roughly 2,000 words or less? It would be okay for you to draw substantially from what you have already written.
Here are the publication guidelines for the forum: https://ic911.org/debated-topics-forum/publication-guidelines
Best regards,
Ted Walter
x8 Maxwell C. Bridges : will create a submission suitable in length for your forum
2023-10-14
Dear Mr. Walter,
Most certainly I will create a submission that is suitable in length for publication on your forum.
The issue is, what to edit? I could use your advice on the matter, assuming that you are somewhat familiar with the work to date even from just skimming.
What assumptions can I make of the reader's knowledge? (Of 9/11? Of nuclear mechanisms? Of existing 9/11 theories?)
You see, my previous works have been REQUIRED to have a multi-prong approach, not necessarily in this order.
- It describes accurately what FGNW are, and how they could be configured.
- It presents the evidence of nuclear components.
- It proves other theories lacking [deep-underground nukes, Woodsian-DEW, nano-thermite...]
- It debunks the nuclear debunking performed by others.
Based on the history of my discussions, 9/11 Truthers can exhibit even more cognitive dissonance than 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theorists (OCTers), because the latter are promoting an agenda (and lately are often bots.) The former, however, praise themselves on their open minds and being able to acknowledge premises outside of what the authorities are saying, and aren't always willing to admit that the slickness of some premises [and cherry-picked data] duped them on some matter that slipped into their open mind searching for solutions and truths. They hold onto that "alternative" explanation, because they know the OCT version is wrong and PhD's endorse their present level of understanding.
In providing me advice, you might say the latter two prongs aren't important. But if I don't have a pre-emptive address for them, then they become the first things thrown against my premise: "PhD's endorse NT;" "Dr. Jones' nukes reputation and the AE9/11Truth FAQ's debunk nuclear involvement."
Some people have to be told (in detail):
- "NT does not address most of the evidence, much less logistically how it was installed to achieve various artifacts. Dr. Jones said NT had to be mixed with something like RDX to achieve its brisance, and that NT alone did not maintain the hot-spots. They did not go looking for what that something else was."
- "If the merits of Dr. Wood's work are its presenting evidence but connecting no dots and drawing no conclusions, then it shouldn't be considered an end-station. She should not have let her DEW premise get framed exclusively as ABL or beams-from-space, because the latter has atmospheric optics and energy source problems that ground-based DEW in the form of FGNW do no."
- "The destruction of the towers initiated at upper floors in line with the premise of the airplane impacts. No deep-under-ground nuke premise has ever explained how ignition could be underground but the energy and destruction initiate a distance away. They also frame the nukes wrong in nuclear yield."
- Or looked at from a different perspective. The OCTers planted the discussion at A. The disinfo agents of the infiltrated 9/11 Truth Movement took the discussion to B1, B2, and B3. My work has to explain why B1, B2, and B3 are lacking so that room is created to take the discussion to the next level C. If the issues with B1, B2, and B3 are not addressed, the disinfo carousel spinning will crank those out first thing.
So, regarding my contribution to your forum, maybe two submissions would be appropriate. Kind of like how Whitney Webb, in order to write about Epstein, had to first write volume 1 of her "One Nation Under Blackmail" with the lead-up history going back over a century.
Submission one would create a void in the understanding of 9/11 truthers by exposing the glaring weaknesses to the consensus theories (NT, Woodsian-DEW), and even deceit. It would introduce the concept of "black-hole treatment."
Submission two would fill the created void with 9/11 FGNW, starting with an accurate description and followed by point-by-point here are pieces of evidence. It would expand upon "black-hole treatment" as it relates to 9/11 nuclear components.
Or do you recommend that I break it up more.
Also, a sincere request. Could we please exclude from the 2,000 word count the end-note reference section?
Actually, I could do it in one submission if I could get the concession from you that the end-notes do not count towards my 2,000 words. ... Woo-hoo! The end-notes seem like an appropriate place for the knife-twisting details that will slaughter various 9/11 sacred cows.
I look forward to whatever advice or feedback you can provide to help me structure my work effectively.
This is gonna be fun.
// mcb
x10 Maxwell C. Bridges : modified my analysis to fit the parameters of your forum
2023-10-22
Dear Mr. Walter,
Attached is an HTML file that modifies my analysis to fit the parameters of your forum. Including the title and the Javascript navigation, the main body comes in at just over 2000 words.
The Javascript within the HTML is required to expose or hide the reference material when the reference number is clicked on in the main body, or from the navigation.
When re-used as an article entry in your forum, you'll need to be viewing the HTML syntax and copying it all (except ,
Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
// mcb
202310_mcb_fgnw_text_04.htm
x12 Ted Walter : submit it as a Word document
2023-10-26
Ted Walter
2023-10-26
Dear Mr. Bridges,
Thank you for submitting this. Would it be possible for you to submit it as a Word document? Also, it did not seem possible to view the references in the html file (for example, when I clicked on "show with references," nothing happened). Hopefully that can be rectified within the Word document.
Thank you,
Ted
x14 Maxwell C. Bridges : clicked on the HTML attachment from your email client
2023-10-28
Dear Mr. Walter,
I noticed some typos in the last version, fixed some formatting, added some references, and added some images to spice it up. They are in the attached HTML file.
You were not able to see the references because you clicked on the HTML attachment from your email client (in your browser.) Don't do that, because your email client probably disables Javascript in the output it sends to another browser tab. [Gmail does that to me when I try to open the attachment directly from the email.]
Instead, save the attachment to your desktop (or other reasonable place on your file system). Then double-click it to get it launched in your default browser. Started this way, the Javascript that hides / reveals the references will work.
Why do you need a Word file? Aren't you publishing to your website as HTML? Going from Word later to HTML is just asking for badly formatted text and lots of mark-up bloat.
Word files, or resulting PDF files, will not have the interactivity needed for the references. The PDF will be so ugly, all of the references will be exposed as quasi-footnotes losing the tight flow of the text obtained when they are hidden. It'd be so ugly, it would require a reworking to make the show/hide references end-notes that then loses the promptness, immediateness, and in some ways context of why the reference information was inserted where it was in the first place. And once in a well formatted Word file that uses footnotes/endnotes properly, the conversion back to HTML will give crap to import to your website.
What are you trying to gain with a Word file? [Professional experience: Word sucked and then got worse for any serious documentation tasks.]
// mcb
202310_mcb_fgnw_text_05.htm
x16 James Gourley : must insist on submission of a Word or PDF version of the paper
2023-11-29
Dear Mr. Bridges,
I’m the editor of the Debated Topics Forum. Thanks for your interest in publishing a paper in the forum. Unfortunately, I must insist on submission of a Word or PDF version of the paper. I don’t know how to review or comment on an HTML version, and frankly, I’m hesitant to open an HTML file that anyone sends me by email. I can easily handle Word or PDF documents.
I also must insist that any revised paper that you submit substantially complies with the 2,000 word limit. This is not an arbitrary technical requirement. The purpose is to require authors to distill down their evidence and argument into a cogent paper with a central theme that is relatively easy to digest and respond to in a focused manner. Mr. Walter tells me that the current version of your paper is about 2,200 words without the references and 10,600 words with the references. If all of the text in a 10,000 word paper is truly completely informative and relevant, it could be broken up into individual lines of argument or evidence that are self-supporting. And if the theory truly needs 10,000 words in a single paper to fully explain it, then it is not a strong theory. My belief is that part of academic rigor is presenting your best arguments and evidence in a manner that is cogent and easy to understand, and a 10,000 word paper is neither of those things.
Best,
James Gourley
x18 Maxwell C. Bridges : an irrational fear of HTML files
2023-12-29
to James and Ted
Dear Mr. James Gourley,
You have an irrational fear of HTML files. Download it and open it in a text editor. Study it. (Google has already virus checked it for you when it went through their servers.) You'll find nothing nefarious, no references to external JS files, just simple Javascript that power its references when later opened in a browser, safely. Mr. Walter had no issues, and as much told you so. Have Mr. Walter virus check the file, if you're so worried.
You are playing games and asking for busy-work Word files.
Mr. Walter, having proven to you that he can correctly view the HTML file, can simply copy the expanded view from his browser and paste into a blank Word document and save. Presto. And from there, he can even generate a PDF. Any time you want, you can have your Word document.
The 2k max word limit is arbitrary, because it certainly isn't being dictated by the web technology of the publication, by Word or by PDF. You wrote: "The purpose is to require authors to distill down their evidence and argument into a cogent paper with a central theme that is relatively easy to digest and respond to in a focused manner."
Done. The ~2k collapse view is within acceptable max word count tolerances for a very weighty topic, I might add, to meet your arbitrary criteria.
Why are you giving publishing advice on a ~2k thesis (that with expanded references is ~10k) when you haven't even read the premise to determine logical equal parts 1 through 5 to achieve your arbitrary 2k max word count on each? Can a "cogent paper with a central theme" be achieved if it must be arbitrarily divided into five (5) or more equal parts of no more than 2k words? [Helps your contributors and anti-fans of my thesis more than it helps my thesis, which is already close enough at ~2k words.]
As an editor and publisher, why are you not providing useful feedback on exactly where the expanded version of my premise should be chunked?
The purpose of my thesis is to ADVANCE the 9/11 (nuclear) discussion. This means that my thesis's literature review is required to address the previous relevant works of others (such as Dr. Steven Jones, or AE9/11Truth's FAQ) to show that the discussion acknowledges that previous state, builds on it, and advances forward to a new state. My thesis chose to bury that necessary work in the references, so that "it distills down the argument into a cogent paper with a central theme that is relatively easy to digest and respond to in a focused manner."
Otherwise -- without the detailed references already present and available to the reader --, the initial public commentary on my thesis is NOT going to ADVANCE the discussion, but instead will be many carousel spins through those previous works and me addressing the issues of those works with the content from those original references that you want me to remove. It becomes a distraction from the thesis.
Lastly, in shopping around my thesis over the years, contributors to your very journal have told me that "extraordinary claims of 9/11 nuclear involvement require extraordinary proof." Done. It's in the references.
Maybe it is those same contributors -- who are not fans of my thesis or its reference notes -- who are advising you to hold the arbitrary 2k word limit in order to cripple my concise ~2k / 10k thesis on a very complex subject into five (5) equal parts of ~2k.
By the way. The ~2k collapse version is about as tight as it is ever going to get. Whereas maybe some fat can be trimmed from the excess ~8k buried in expandable reference notes, enough of it is still fundamentally required in the references that will exceed your word count by a factor of 2 or 3.
It is a complex subject with much disinformation aimed at it already. It advances the discussion when this is handled in the literature review, but hidden from view until the scent of the information draws the reader into boring into the expandable reference.
+++ Word / PDF file revisited
You seem to desire that a Word/PDF file be the source for the publication, even though the website is HTML (and Word exports very shitty HTML.) You desire a nicely formatted Word document using its footnote or endnote features. The footnote version runs the risk of lengthy but necessary footnotes constantly interrupting the flow of the 2k concise thesis. The endnote version separates the information too far; assuming it gets implemented well in the web version, readability is disturbed when jumping back and forth between the source and target.
Using my HTML that is implemented well, I don't have to assume anything or worry about the shit the roundtripping HTML-Word-HTML is going to give.
Last but not least, I do not like the personal information that Microsoft Word grabs and embeds in documents. Furthermore, Word documents are far more likely to have viruses than text-based HTML documents. Shame on you for suggesting this sneak.
Returning to your statement: "I don’t know how to review or comment on an HTML version."
You can use anything from Notepad to Word and beyond, along with a browser to render your review version. There are any number of simple (HTML) techniques you can use to make your comments distinct from my original text.
As an editor, when you see my HTML in action, you'll understand why its implementation was chosen... And you'll wish that all of your web site's publication's could make use of the expand/collapse reference functionality... And they can.
Here's me improving your publishing world at no cost.
If you open my HTML file in a text editor, you can copy the (Javascript) section and make it available to your website. I'm sure there's a place in your web site's management where you can define common files / snippets that every generated page automatically pulls in.
In conclusion,
(a) My HTML file has been virus checked by Google itself, and by any virus checker that Mr. Walter regularly runs on his computer.
(b) Review can be accomplished with a.n.y text editor and a browser.
(c) Your publishing team has the ability to view my content and create any temporary Word/PDF files that you might want to use in your review process.
(d) HTML will remain the source, and any comments or suggestions obtained through a temporary Word file will be implemented in HTML source.
// mcb
x20 Maxwell C. Bridges : New submission on FGNW
2024-03-30
Dear Mr. Ted Walter,
After I presented to Boston 9/11 Truth, I was told that if I could
create a submission that was 2000 words, it would be closer to being a
candidate for publication.
Attached in the ZIP file is a new truncated submission on "9/11 Fourth
Generation Exotic Nuclear Weapons" for IC911Justice.
You'll need to download the ZIP file and extract it.
You can open the main file 202404_mcb_fgnw_text_10.htm in Microsoft
Word, and from there generate any needed PDF files. All of the
associated image files are in the FGNW_images folder. This version has
no reference notes other than what appears inline with the flowing
text.
You can view the same HTM file in an editor to make sure it has no badness.
The same HTM file is designed to be opened by a browser, where the
Javascript will be enabled and run to collapse and expand the
sections.
P.S. Here is the link to my first ever zoom presentation on my 9/11
hobby-horse topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
// mcb
x22 Ted Walter : will review it and respond hopefully within one week, no more than two weeks
2024-04-08
Dear Mr. Bridges,
Thanks for your submission and apologies for the slight delay in responding. We will review it and respond hopefully within one week, no more than two weeks. Thank you for your interest in publishing in the Debated Topics Forum.
Best regards,
Ted Walter
x24 Maxwell C. Bridges : following up on my 2024-03-30 submission
2024-05-06
Dear Mr. Walter,
I'm following up on my 2024-03-30 submission. What is its status? It has been almost a month after you wrote "no more than two weeks."
Thanks,
// M.C.Bridges
x26 Ted Walter : working on it now
2024-05-08
Dear Mr. Bridges,
Thank you for your email and for your patience.
The moderator of the forum, James Gourley, was unavailable for much of the past month. We are working on it now and will respond soon.
Best regards,
Ted Walter
--
Ted Walter
Executive Director
International Center for 9/11 Justice
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality."
– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
x28 Maxwell C. Bridges : Today is May 29
2024-05-29
Dear Mr. Walter,
You wrote on May 8 regarding my submission to IC9/11 about exotic nuclear weapons: "We are working on it now and will respond soon."
Today is May 29.
// M.C.Bridges
x30 James Gourley : reviewed it and believe it still needs work
2024-06-04
to: m.c.bruecke@gmail.com
cc: Piers Robinson
Ted Walter
date: Jun 4, 2024, 2:47 PM
subject: Re: New submission on FGNW
Dear Malcom,
Thank you for submitting the paper on FGENW. We have reviewed it and believe it still needs work before it would be appropriate for publication. The overarching picture is that you need to do a better job tying the evidence presented to the FGENW thesis. For example, simply noting that people heard vibrations doesn’t appear to tie directly to the assertion; conventional explosives also cause vibrations. If there is a tighter case to be made with respect to the testimony regarding vibrations, you should make it. Also, the presence of the chemicals you identified needs to be tied to the assertion that they resulted from FGENW. Many of the chemicals appear to have been found at tiny levels that might be nothing more than background levels. There’s no comparison presented to the reader showing that these chemicals are unusual. Similarly, the tritium appeared to be present at levels well below the acceptable limit for drinking water, again raising the question of whether this is different than background.
In sum, we’d like to see a revised paper that makes a stronger connection between the evidence presented and the thesis.
Best,
James
<202404_mcb_fgnw_text_10.htm> <202404_mcb_fgnw_text_10.docx>
x32 Maxwell C. Bridges : Is this the level of peer-review that I can expect?
2024-06-04
to James, Piers, Ted
Dear Mr. Gourley,
Thank you for the "review" of my submission. How many people reviewed it? Was that the entirety of their feedback? After two months, the amount of and detail in the feedback seemed rather shallow.
You wrote: "Thank you for submitting the paper on FGENW. We have reviewed it and believe it still needs work before it would be appropriate for publication."
Thank you for giving me permission to exceed the word-count in order to rectify in the revision the areas identified. What is the new total word count for my submission?
You wrote: "The overarching picture is that you need to do a better job tying the evidence presented to the FGENW thesis. For example, simply noting that people heard vibrations doesn’t appear to tie directly to the assertion; conventional explosives also cause vibrations. If there is a tighter case to be made with respect to the testimony regarding vibrations, you should make it."
You seem to be staking out new goal posts for the endeavor. Is the FGNW revision expected to make a comprehensive case and review all pillars that support it?
Using your example of vibrations, is FGNW expect to claw evidence from other premises? Is FGNW expected to give "error"-time to "conventional explosives" and explain why FGNW addresses it better?
BTW, vibrations combined with decibel signatures, implementation logistics, and installation details is what debunks chemical-based explosives (including NT).
Given the word count limitations and the vast amounts of evidence that could/would/should be simply re-presented to be viewed through new FGNW lens, you are purposely trying to weaken the FGNW case by having it waste its word count clawing back, say, "vibrations" from other premises, if not debunking them as well.
You wrote: "Also, the presence of the chemicals you identified needs to be tied to the assertion that they resulted from FGENW. Many of the chemicals appear to have been found at tiny levels that might be nothing more than background levels."
I do not mention "chemicals." I mention "elements" from the periodic table. I mention tritium.
You mention "chemicals appear to have been found at tiny levels." You seem to be staking out yet another new goal post that FGNW has to exactly match "tiny levels." FGNW does not.
The peer-review rebuttal might attempt to go into "tiny levels," but this is a red-herring. The substantiating reports have credibility issues built-in via scope-limits and omissions, and can't be trusted at face value to be the complete and accurate assessment of levels. Further, if "tiny levels" were something that could be brushed off as such, this explanation belonged in the original substantiating report. (Uranium and its decay elements were present in the data tables of USGS, Paul Lioy, and RJLee, but omitted from their reports were any plain text explanations into, say, the "tiny levels.")
The point being, discussion of levels that you desire necessitates addressing the deficiencies of the reports exposing the levels in the first place.
You wrote: "There’s no comparison presented to the reader showing that these chemicals are unusual."
Your use of the word "chemicals" again trips me up. I think you mean "elements." And then I get tripped up again into thinking you didn't read the article, because what was unusual about Uranium and its decay elements was explained -- in direct quotations from Mr. Jeff Prager.
You wrote: "Similarly, the tritium appeared to be present at levels well below the acceptable limit for drinking water, again raising the question of whether this is different than background."
Yes, indeed, two levels are in consideration: one is the expected background level, while the other is an EPA standard relating to health impacts. The health impact level is higher than background levels. FTR the definition of background levels was changed by the report, and it tries to explain away their scope-limits, shoddy-sampling, and faulty-extrapolations by saying "doesn't matter, because our shoddy samples never had levels equal to or above those known to impact health; so don't worry; the other shit in the dust will kill you before tritium in the run-off does."
You wrote: "In sum, we’d like to see a revised paper that makes a stronger connection between the evidence presented and the thesis."
Certainly, and what is the new target word-count?
Is this the level of peer-review that I can expect? If so, who were the peers who reviewed? Don't they have more to say? How long will it take the proposed revision to be peer-reviewed once re-submitted?
You mentioned you wanted "a stronger connection." The issue is, the stronger connections in cases actually "weaken the evidence", or rather, it appropriately presents the limits of the evidence that were initially used in attempts to undermine all forms of nuclear involvement.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
// Maxwell C. Bridges
x34 James Gourley : allegations that we are moving goal posts is not appreciated
2024-06-05
to me, Piers, Ted
Maxwell,
Regarding the timing, this is a volunteer organization, so your understanding that sometimes things take longer to complete in such an organization is appreciated.
Your allegations that we are moving goal posts is not appreciated. We review all submissions to ensure that a coherent, logical, evidence-based argument is being made. We did not find that such was present in this case.
I’m sorry if you have a problem with the points raised in my review, but I’m the editor of the Debated Topics Forum, and I’m not going to publish a paper that I don’t think makes a coherent, logical, evidence-based argument. It is up to you on whether you want to work with me to draft a paper that I believe is worth publishing or not.
You seem to also have a problem with my use of the word “chemicals” rather than “elements.” As I’m sure you are aware, the periodic table is a table of chemical elements, so this concern of yours appears to be an attempt to make a rhetorical point rather than a substantive one. Frankly, I don’t find your work compelling enough to spend hours crafting a detailed review that gets every single word exactly correct, and non-substantive attacks on my point of view don’t help your case for publication in a forum that I edit. Generally, I read your paper and found it lacking any tie between the “evidence” presented and the thesis that FGENW were used. I can’t rewrite the paper for you, I’m sorry.
If you are concerned about word count, I recommend narrowing the focus of the paper. For example, this paper could perhaps be focused on the chemical evidence of FGENW use at the WTC. If you’d like to write a separate paper on some other aspect that also suggests use of FGENW, then write a separate paper on that aspect. As I’ve said many times, we decided on this word count to laser focus discussions on specific debated topics. For example, see the papers we have published on the Pentagon. One is on the damage to the wall of the Pentagon - a very narrow topic. Another is on damage to a floor slab - an even narrower one. There are probably 10 or more aspects of the Pentagon that have been debated, which means on the topic of the Pentagon generally, we could eventually have dozens of papers that are laser focused on one specific aspect. This was our choice on how to structure the Debated Topics Forum, and it might not be appropriate for everyone who wants to write on topics related to 9/11.
Finally, I’ll just again note that this is not a “peer review” that I am providing. This is an editorial review that is, again, frankly a very low bar that you have failed to meet.
Best,
James
x36 Maxwell C. Bridges : happy to re-work my submission into multi-parts
2024-06-05
to James, Piers, Ted
Dear Mr. Gourley,
You wrote: "I’m sorry if you have a problem with the points raised in my review, but I’m the editor of the Debated Topics Forum, and I’m not going to publish a paper that I don’t think makes a coherent, logical, evidence-based argument. It is up to you on whether you want to work with me to draft a paper that I believe is worth publishing or not."
First of all, congratulations on appealing to your own authority.
Secondly, I don't have problems with the points raised except that it seems rather thin given the amount of time provided for review. This isn't exclusively in reference to the two months that you took. My nuclear hobby-horse has been on the radars of Mr. David Chandler and Mr. Wayne Coste for quite literally years. The former even received his copy of Dr. Wood's book compliments me with the hope that he'd help me debunk it. He didn't; I had to do it myself and evolve my understanding accordingly. In fact, Mr. Chandler was the one who told me, if I could make a case for nuclear involvement, I should. I did. And he has consistently been unable to read it, let alone comment on it to improve or debunk it. As for Mr. Coste, he doesn't debate in good faith.
Thirdly, FGNW is a detailed subject that alone requires more words to make its case, which your feedback has already proven.
Fourthly, not only does FGNW have lots of supporting pillars, but most have them to be yanked out from underneath the competing limited-hang-out premises or notions, followed by proof either they being more applicable to FGNW or proof the pillar was incomplete, faulty, and unreliable to be used in any rational argument except as an example of manipulation of science via shoddy scopes, shoddy measurement, and shoddy conclusions.
All of these require more words than allowed. Increase the limit.
Your suggestion to narrow the scope of the paper is a valid one for subsequent submissions that refine the various supporting pillars to prove individually the validity of their foundation.
The first 2k version only has room in its word count to present a high-level and wide swath of what substantiates it. It doesn't have the word count to validate that substantiation, much less to prove the evidence belongs to FGNW and not something else.
But because word-count in a single submission seems to be your biggest issue, I'll be happy to create, say, four (4) submissions or parts that make the whole, but with the understanding that they need to published at the same time. Why? Because otherwise the nay-sayers in your organization (named dropped two of them) might be tempted to make a flailing debunking pass at Part 1 and then hypnotically suggest that any subsequent parts aren't worth publishing, let alone rationally discussing.
Given that you have appealed to your authority as publisher, then I am going to hold you to it. As publisher, it is your job to publish interesting things, some or little of which you actually wrote. You need content, and you need to assist those who are providing you with that content. You already know where my content is going, because this was in a submission >>2k words in an HTML file that your staff had difficulty opening. Your comments about elements and levels indicates more than a passing knowledge.
As publisher, you specify how you would like to see the content chunked into parts. Do some effort. Why? Because if this actually gets legitimately peer-reviewed and published, it will figuratively "nuclear energize" all areas of 9/11 Truth activism... when it isn't spilling figurative "nuclear fallout" on reputations.
... Thank you for reading my rant.
In conclusion, I will be happy to re-work my submission into multi-parts.
Reminds me of Whitney Webb's "One Nation Under Blackmail". She wanted to write exclusively what became volume 2, which was all about Jeffrey Epstein. But Epstein without historical context can't be understood, hence volume 1 was required.
In a similar vein, FGNW speculation details in part 2 of my publication can't be presented without first part 1 that evaluates the report / evidence appropriately in terms of weaknesses or limitations, that disengages evidence from other (disinfo) premises, and that highlights the psyops disinfo at play. Part 1 is "yanking the pillars" of various notions. Part 2 is re-positioning the pillars to support FGNW.
Your feedback to have more focus is well received. WTC-4 and WTC-6 seem like excellent candidates for the focus of where FGNW were in play. Then much later additional FGNW parts can be written which extrapolate from the destruction of those buildings to WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.
Your thoughts?
// Maxwell C. Bridge
x38 Maxwell C. Bridges : the revised version of the paper "9/11 Exotic Nuclear Weapons"
2024-08-25
to: James Gourley
cc: Piers Robinson
Ted Walter
date: Aug 25, 2024, 10:06 PM
subject: Re: New submission on FGNW
Dear Mr. James Gourley,
Attached is the revised version of the paper "9/11 Exotic Nuclear Weapons".
The FGNW premise has many pillars of 9/11 evidence that it rests on. Although important to a comprehensive case, some of the "smaller" pillars (e.g., vibrations) were removed from this version to allow further explanations about pillars and to keep within the total word count.
The purpose of this paper isn't to make the end-all, most comprehensive argument about 9/11 nuclear involvement. No, its purpose is to act as a seed for proper understanding of all elements of 9/11 lore that only make sense with this piece. Subsequent researchers will vet it and add to it.
You'll note that the longer articles from which this work is derived first had to handle all sorts of false notions in the 9/11 lore, such as why both NT and Woodsian-DEW are limited hang-outs. This work cuts right to the chase.
Those who try to debunk the notion of nuclear components to 9/11 will be faced with the challenge of re-purposing the evidence here (e.g., pictures, videos) and presenting how their 9/11 theory (probably NT or Woodsian-DEW) #1 addresses the anomaly and #2 explains it better. As a student of 9/11 truth, the mainstream 9/11 truth movement does a lot of ignoring of evidence, such as depicted in the NIST/FEMA videos and also causing video tape glitches.
//
x40 James Gourley : Re: New submission on FGNW
2025-01-16
from James Gourley
to: Maxwell Bridges
cc: Piers Robinson
Ted Walter
date: Jan 16, 2025, 11:02 AM
subject: Re: New submission on FGNW
Maxwell,
We have reviewed your latest submission on your FGNW hypothesis, and we find that it does not meet the publication standards that we have set for the debated topics forum--primarily, that submissions be evidence-based and logical.
The document appears to be approximately 80% speculation. Here are examples of problems that I see:
You did not show how your proposed demolition setup would be consistent with the voluminous video evidence we have of the collapses, including the squibs. This is particularly egregious for Building 7, which looks exactly like a classic, bottom-up, conventional explosive driven controlled demolition.
You did not rule out other possibilities for the bent pieces of steel.
You did not discuss the background levels of elements identified in the Lioy paper, or the tritium discussion, or rule out other sources for these materials. I believe I specifically identified this problem the last time around. I also saw no documentation or citation regarding the ratios of these elements being consistent with nuclear reactions.
You also did not support the claim that nuclear reactions cause "scintillation" in digital camera footage or interference with video tape footage.
Overall, the paper was thoroughly unconvincing, and, yet again, did not meet the low bar we have set for the Debated Topics Forum.
At this point, I think it is clear that the Debated Topics Forum that is administered by our organization is not the appropriate place for you to publish your ideas. There are a million other places you can publish your work, and I suggest that you find a better venue for these ideas.
Best,
James
x42 Maxwell C. Bridges : thin and unconvincing nature
2025-01-16
from: Maxwell Bridges
to: James Gourley
cc: Piers Robinson
Ted Walter
date: Jan 16, 2025, 3:42 PM
subject: Re: New submission on FGNW
mailed-by: gmail.com
Dear Mr. Gourley,
I thank you for your feedback, despite its thin and unconvincing nature.
You and I both know that my work was NEVER going to be published on IC911 owing to the fact that it negatively impacts the reputations of several people in your group (e.g., Wayne Coste, David Chandler) and exposes the fraud in their work and steering of the truth movement. Ergo, you're just making up excuses to cover their asses.
You wrote: "The document appears to be approximately 80% speculation."
Your opinion.
What was the amount of speculation that all of the nanothermite work has? NT wasn't even found in the anybody's dust samples -- except Dr. Jones'. What was found by two different independent analyses (USGS and RJ Lee) was uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities. NT doesn't address that.
What was found in the water samples was tritium in a very stilted and convoluted report. NT also doesn't address tritium, and NT's initial champion -- Dr. Jones -- accepted those faulty finding unquestioned and unchallenged, and added to the skew about it being small and below levels that were a danger to human health after re-defining "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than they were defined prior to this event. Deceit right at the core of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
How does NT address any of the anomalous evidence in Dr. Wood's book? How does chemical-based explosives (with NT) address WTC-4, WTC-6, or WTC-7?
For that matter, where was NT positioned and how was it configured for WTC-1 and WTC-2? Talk about unconvincing and MIA!
You wrote: "You did not show how your proposed demolition setup would be consistent with the voluminous video evidence we have of the collapses, including the squibs."
Wrong. Your hypnotic suggestion has no power here.
First of all, you had me delete that information in order to make your arbitrary word count.
Secondly, my proposed demolition setup DOES address the video evidence of the collapse including the squibs. (4 FGNW per detonation levels, 10-20 detonation levels in the towers. 1 detonation level for WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7.)
The squibs actually weren't squibs. Squibs for controlled demolition (with chemical based explosives even mixed with NT) would have been at more levels and not every 10-20 floors.
Worse for you and NT, if we assume they were traditional squibs, what were they doing? I mean, they didn't destroy anything on the inner-core, because after the surrounding building structure was destroyed, the inner-core in both towers remained standing for brief moments before telescoping and folding in on itself. Real squibs would have been destroying structure around where they were detonated, but that wasn't observed.
Also, a squib every 10-20 floors? How was it configured and what was the medium for the energy to destroy content in the 10-20 floors above the detonation? Typically, if the explosives weren't placed every level, then the medium of destruction becomes an explosive blast wave, which would have been VERY LOUD. Wasn't present, so NT comes up short.
What you are calling squibs is the ignition and tiny blast wave of the FGNW. Not designed to destroy but to kick-start the fission stage.
You wrote: "This is particularly egregious for Building 7, which looks exactly like a classic, bottom-up, conventional explosive driven controlled demolition."
Way to change the subject. My paper was on WTC-1 and WTC-2.
But seeing how you mention WTC-7, it was a secure facility and would have been very difficult to wire up for conventional explosives under such security. It would have taken weeks without security, but they only had a matter of hours when the building was empty.
Plus, conventional explosives (even mixed with super-duper NT) would have been VERY LOUD. You ignore this. FGNW, releasing 80% or more of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons would NOT have been loud, matches all of the audio of destruction of the building, and has energy to spare to account for targeted dustification of content.
You wrote: "You did not rule out other possibilities for the bent pieces of steel."
It is not my job or purpose to rule out anything. But seeing how you are mentioning "other possibilities for the bent pieces of steel", what do you suggest? Chemical-based explosives (with NT) can't achieve it, let alone in a "quiet" fashion. And those who propose NT (e.g., Wayne Coste) do not provide any reasonable configuration for how it was achieved. Amounts? Placement? All of that, MIA for NT, but not for FGNW.
FGNW doesn't have to even try very hard to bend steel, because it has energy to spare and can volume heat large steel beams instantly end-to-end. And I write this without even knowing what bent pieces of steel you are referring to, such is the poor quality of your feedback.
You wrote: "You did not discuss the background levels of elements identified in the Lioy paper, or the tritium discussion, or rule out other sources for these materials."
You can blame the arbitrary word count limitation that you imposed on my paper, because discussing "background levels of elements" is out-of-scope. But in your haste to dismiss my work, you failed to research the other articles on my blog that discuss this.
FTR, "background levels" is one of the cheats used by the NT disinformation. As already mentioned, "background" or "trace" were purposely redefined as 55 times greater than they were previously (in tritium paper). Owing to other flaws and scope-limits of the reports, even discussing the alleged measured values is a red-herring, because they were probably juked to high heaven and can't be trusted at face value.
Doesn't matter, because simply the presence of Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities in the data tables of two separate reports and the presence of Tritium in a very STUPID report already make the case for hybrid-fission-fusion FGNW. My paper doesn't need to go into the weeds to defend values given in the data tables and match to weapons, particularly if there is no reason to trust the accuracy of the values themselves. (And you are a fool if you do trust them and try to prop them up as "God's honest word" on the matter. Didn't the 9/11 Commission Report already teach you that?)
You wrote: "I believe I specifically identified this problem the last time around."
Yes, you did mention an alleged problem the last time, and I fixed it. How? By removing the details, because again the mere presence of Uranium, its decay elements, and tritium already signify nuclear involvement. Period. End of story.
You wrote: "I also saw no documentation or citation regarding the ratios of these elements being consistent with nuclear reactions."
Then you didn't read closely enough and missed the peer-reviewed work of Dr. Andre Gsponer mentioned rather obviously in all versions of my work. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
I suggest you go and review that and debunk it if you can as being wrong. Assuming you can debunk Dr. Gsponer's, then my work folds.
But when it is proven that Dr. Gsponer's can't be debunked, is a major OMISSION from Dr. Jones (and Dr. Wood), and is avoided by Coste/Chandler and company, then it becomes clear why IC911 comes up with lame reasons to reject my work.
You wrote: "You also did not support the claim that nuclear reactions cause "scintillation" in digital camera footage or interference with video tape footage."
Increase my word count, and you will get what you ask for. But actually... No, I do not have to support the claim, because it is a fact. Radioactivity affects both digital and video tape cameras; and always has.
For your edification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebpscjKRCqo
Also: https://www.rdklein.de/
You wrote: "Overall, the paper was thoroughly unconvincing, and, yet again, did not meet the low bar we have set for the Debated Topics Forum."
If what you write is true, then it is good company with all of the crappy and inconclusive NT work of your group.
You wrote: "At this point, I think it is clear that the Debated Topics Forum that is administered by our organization is not the appropriate place for you to publish your ideas. There are a million other places you can publish your work, and I suggest that you find a better venue for these ideas."
A million other places? Liar. If you would have written "dozens of other places", maybe you'd have a point. But that over-generalization just puts your whole WEAK analysis and feedback into sharper focus. Your denials are unconvincing as scientifically sound and reek of gate-keeping and ass covering.
The bottom-line is that nanothermite has an even weaker and lamer explanation for the destruction. Because your committee is made up of NT-champions, their reputations and integrity are at stake, and they aren't going to allow fair publication of a premise that does address all of the evidence logically, elegantly, and concisely.
Case in point, how does super-duper NT explain WTC-4? Answer: it doesn't. NT-champions (e.g., Coste, Chandler, Gage) don't even go there. On purpose. You'll understand why when you read the following work.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
When you study WTC-4 closely, you'll see that WTC-4 was destroyed QUIETLY while the WTC-2 wall assemblies -- that allegedly crushed it -- were still in the air. Content-rich clouds from WTC-4 energetically rose into the air from ground level. This same anomaly presents itself with WTC-1 and WTC-6 (and WTC-5).
In summary, you expect my work to both defend the FGNW premise while also debunking why it wasn't something else like NT, all within an arbitrary word count. Those are two different goals. Two different papers. I'd be more than happy to debunk the shit out of nanothermite. I've already done it, in 2016: https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html .
If you've read this far, this is where I get to brag. Whereas I am as threatening as a little kitten (in a different time-zone) to your physical well-being, this does not hold true to the well-being of your reputations, which are about to get figuratively nuked. You, personally, may not have been involved in the least with the development of the limp and lame nanothermite deceitful speculation that addresses far less of the anomalous evidence than FGNW. But you're toe-ing the NT line despite it being grossly wrong, and don't really have convincing arguments to deny the publication of my paper. In fact, I've had more meaningful detailed conversations with ChatGPT than I have had with you.
Alas, I knew this in advance. I've had exchanges with Coste and Chandler that suggest this is how it would go. They ran away from any shape or form of legitimate discussion that would (a) defend NT and (b) debunk FGNW. The first two submittals to IC911 also foreshadowed how it would go.
But my naive and trusting super-powers said "this time will be different; this time someone's eyes will be opened." I had to earnestly and sincerely go through the motions and get your forum to commit itself.
You prove that the only relevance 9/11 Truth has to today is proving that disinfo agents are still active in suppressing the truth.
You might as well jump the gun and pre-emptively shut down IC911 now before the figurative nuclear fall out creeps in.
// Maxwell C. Bridges
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/ExoticNuclearWeaponsV3.html
Part 2: FGNW Discussions with Winston Smith, Trina
x44 Maxwell C. Bridges : 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons
2023-12-12
Attached is a simple HTML file.
1) Download to a convenient location on your computer.
2) Optional: open with a text editor to assure no badness (like links to external Javascript files).
3) Launch your browser.
4) With your browser, open this file.
If you find issues:
1) Copy my HTML file to a newly named file.
2) Open that file in your browser.
3) Open that file in your editor (e.g., Notepad).
4) Make your comments in that file with the editor, putting some sort of flag on your comments so they can be located. Save.
5) Refresh your browser on that file to see your comments.
6) When done, send me that file.
THANK YOU SO MUCH in advance for your review.
// mcb
202310_mcb_fgnw_text_07.htm
x46 Winston Smith : comments/questions in sticky notes
2023-12-12
See attached with comments/questions in sticky notes near the relevant text.
I am unable to comment on the other information. Way above my education.
--Thank you,
Dave
x48 Maxwell C. Bridges : None of them are gating
2023-12-12
Dear Mr. Winston Smith, Mr. Dave, and Mr. Kawik,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the beginning of my 9/11 theory.
I've extracted the comments from the PDF and addressed them below. None of them are gating.
=== begin
kawik: "At what temp does the concrete dissociate? What temperature does the truss vaporize?"
I'd have to google the temperature for concrete. But Kawik can google, too.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379711207000148
"At 800 °C, concrete is usually crumbled and above 1150 °C feldspar melts and the other minerals of the cement paste turn into a glass phase [11]. As a result, severe micro-structural changes are induced and concrete loses its strength and durability."
Shortly after reference note 17 is the reference note "Extremely High Temperatures" with information taken from "Beyond Misinformation" page 34. It quotes temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction. Without googling, I'm getting the
Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
PROCESS AND MATERIAL °C °F
To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832
To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652
To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800
To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849
To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164
To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753
To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000
kawik: "Maybe because the mics are designed for up close work. An audio analysis was done fro the WTC1 collapse and determined the bangs were so closely timed that it was a roar picked up by network cams. Also videos obtained thru NIST were tampered with. Channels deleted, overdubbed, or white noise inserted."
Some mics were designed for close work, some weren't. Like all of the amateur videos. I don't dispute tampered NIST videos.
However, it is complete and utter speculation to say "the bangs were so closely timed that it was a roar picked up by network cams."
The fire-fighters were saying words to the effect: "Floors were popping out one-by-one, bang-bang-bang." What is wrong (hyperbole) about this statement is saying floors were being demolished one-by-one. Were it so, the destruction would have sounded like a machine gun (110 floors). No, the popping they heard was at a cadence they could count -- bang-bang-bang --, which indicates levels for the destruction devices were every 10 to 20 floors.
kawik: "Ridiculous misdirection. They said a 7/8" bottom flange on girder A2001 was responsible for initiating the progressive collapse. Yet they go the opposite direction and apply a sufficient explosive to a 5" thick column."
The above comment was made in response to a quote in reference note 7 from John Albanese, a denier of controlled demolition using chemical-based explosives. [He might even be an OCTer.] However, that does not make this observation incorrect about the cadence of the explosions.
Please clarify which building girder A2001 is associated with.
kawik: "We see dust ejections racing down the WTC1 SW corner, confined. Seems like a whole lot more windows would be involved if there were four FGNW per floor. All windows should be going at once since the 1/4|" glass is the weakest element."
In my speculation, the devices were on the outer-face of the inner-core and mounted securely to that inner core. Whereas their neutron emission was aimed upwards, they could have aimed / channeled the blast wave (within the 20% of nuclear yield that isn't highly energetic neutrons) from each FGNW such that this was the "squib seen on the faces of the towers and proceeding the destruction way, but only about every 10-20 floors.
Like the blast from a conventional charge can be directed, they channeled the FGNW blast waves to go orthogonal to the destructive way.
kawik: "Wasn't this before UA175 struck?"
This comment was placed between two paragraphs in reference note 7. Regardless of which paragraph the comment is aimed at, the comment does not apply. The noises were after UA175 struck.
===== end
PUBLISHING AND EDITORIAL ADVICE.
I don't know how you created your PDF file, but it looks like crap and has led to some of Mr. Kawik's confusion. It has no images, no formatting, and exposes HTML syntax. Nothing quite like BAD PRESENTATION to ruin a good argument.
I'll accept no more comments based on your PDF file.
Next time, launch Word and simply open the HTML file on your computer. You'll get most of the formatting (that goes a long way to clarify who is being quoted) and less of the junk. From there:
Option 1: You can save-as a Word DOC file, and that version would allow Word comments.
Option 2: You can print to PDF from the Word file and then use Adobe comments.
// mcb
x50 Winston Smith : We saw powdering of concrete that happens at 900C
2023-12-13
"At 800 °C, concrete is usually crumbled
We saw powdering. That happens at 900C. (see ASTM attached)
"white powdered decomposed hydration products at 900°C"
I would suggest that whatever destroyed the slabs had to quickly reach 900C or above. The steel trusses did not melt, but the floor pans were practically non-existent.
************************************************************************************
Closely timed explosions: The only way to examine this is thru recordings. We can't analyze what individuals recollect. This is from a camera video north of WTC1, but I am unable to locate the work we did a long time ago.
**************************************************************************************
Please clarify which building girder A2001 is associated with.
WTC7 on Floor 13.
************************************************************************************
"Like the blast from a conventional charge can be directed, they channeled the FGNW blast waves to go orthogonal to the destructive way."
As soon as the blast reaches the exterior it will blow out fragile windows. Watch the isolated and confined racing down the SW corner.
WTC1 Collapse - Unknown NBC Camera (Enhanced NIST Clip "WNBC Dub3_31.avi")
x52 Maxwell C. Bridges : Your comment supports my theory of 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons
2023-12-13
Dear Mr. Winston Smith,
Thank you for your reply.
Your comment supports my theory of 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons.
You wrote: "The steel trusses did not melt, but the floor pans were practically non-existent."
FGNW didn't "melt" the steel trusses. The FGNW did to them what it did to the floor pans -- became non-existent. Or stated another way, the leading edge of the metal received so much energy from the highly energetic neutrons "just passing through" that it vaporized so fast, it ablated and caused a shock wave in the rest of the material that blew it apart.
You wrote: "Closely timed explosions: The only way to examine this is thru recordings. We can't analyze what individuals recollect. This is from a camera video north of WTC1, but I am unable to locate the work we did a long time ago."
"Explosion sounds" do not have to mean that chemical-based "explosives" created the sounds.
Enough researchers have cast shade over the audio recordings. However, if we assume true the "closely timed explosions" that was more of a rumble, FGNW can point to this ablation process and the generated shockwave within the material. This would be detected as "explosion sounds" on recordings, but no where near the decibels of chemical-based explosives.
"The squibs" visible in the videos and that went orthogonally out of the middle of at least two faces of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction canopy, the FGNW theory contends was either (a) the FGNW tempered blast wave as part of the 20% nuclear yield (with heat wave and EMP) that isn't highly energetic neutrons, or (b) blow-back from the conventional kick-starter charge of the fission stage of the hybrid fission-fusion process.
Regarding that, you wrote: "As soon as the blast reaches the exterior it will blow out fragile windows. Watch the isolated and confined racing down the SW corner. "
Your statement is over-generalized. Why would a shaped-charge blast-wave of under 20% the nuclear yield of already tactical devices HAVE to blow out all of the fragile windows? Why wouldn't it be restricted to only those windows in line of fire?
One other point of bat-shit crazy speculation, mitigated heat wave (with blast wave and EMP for 20% of yield) would have preceded the shaped-charge blast wave at the ignition level and vaporized the glass which wouldn't necessarily be visible, certainly at the resolution of the very distant camera.
//
x54 Winston Smith : Can you point to a video, or before and after pictures
2023-12-14
Can you point to a video, or before and after pictures, that demonstrate the FGNW effects on steel of different thicknesses?
The debris piles in the scrap yards show lots of rebar and bar joist materials. Mountains of structural steel were still being processed in APR 2002. NIST noted at least one bar joist 1" rod that had melted ends, pointed.
x56 Maxwell C. Bridges : references are within the very article that you are reviewing
2023-12-14
Dear Mr. Winston Smith,
You asked a question: "Can you point to a video ,or before and after pictures, that demonstrate the FGNW effects on steel of different thicknesses?"
These references are within the very article that you are reviewing. Yes, it is expected that reviewers will chase down these rabbit-hole, watch them, vet them (or not), and percolate any findings back up to that section of the article to vet it (or not).
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
Right from the beginning are many anomalies pieces of steel whose twisted shapes suggest some form of volume heating of the material to make it suddenly pliable. One of many places the video camera suddenly experiences serious glitches is just before 46:00.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
28:51 A box column of a wall assembly exhibited a gash along 1/3 or more of its length and through the spandrel (thicker) area.[19]
1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.[20]
1:27:00 Column smoothly bent into a C-shape and smoothly bent steel.
1:39:00 and 1:57:00 Radiation affecting the video camera.
Proximity to the FGNW's output cone of highly energetic neutrons played a huge role. As in, if the steel was in the path of the cone, if it was close (say within 10 floors), it was vaporized and ablated. WTC-6 was 8 stories and WTC-4 was 9 stories; FGNW installed at ground level aimed upwards. Resulted in WTC-6 crater looking structure, and WTC-4 main edifice justifying. If the steel was not in the path of the maximum energy of the cone but was grazed by the weaker outer boundary of the cone, it would heat sufficiently to burn things attached to it, like paint, drywall.
John Gross of NIST or FEMA is photographed pointing at anomalous pieces of steel that had swiss cheese holes and thinning.
You wrote: "The debris piles in the scrap yards show lots of rebar and bar joist materials. Mountains of structural steel were still being processed in APR 2002. NIST noted at least one bar joist 1" rod that had melted ends, pointed."
The debris piles in the scrap yards for sure had lots of rebar and joist materials. From which buildings? They demolished what remained of WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.
I did not point out all of the anomalous pieces of evidence from WTC-1 and WTC-2 in the two videos.
However in your watching of the two videos, you'll run across instances where a hollow box column of a wall assembly has come apart at its welded seams and where one or more faces of the wall assembly had "wiggles", "waves", or "Ruffles potato chips have ridges."
// mcb
x58 Winston Smith : Not exactly what I was hoping for.
2023-12-16
Not exactly what I was hoping for.
A video of a known FGNW doing damage to structural steel.
If FGNWs exist there must be testing videos out there somewhere for scientists to review.
I'm with you on the very strange bent steel. I want to know how this was accomplished. See attached-- pieces I was able to get up close to. Not the best examples perhaps, but still............. Very creepy.
Dave
x60 Maxwell C. Bridges : Nuclear anything is considered under national security
2023-12-19
Dear Mr Winston Smith,
Briefly answering on a smartphone from a beach in Panama.
Nuclear anything is considered under national security. Charges of treason with penalties of death apply to all who really know. Means and methods are not made public.
Whenever evidence presents itself I collect. I have seen anomalous building destruction in other countries after the fact (not a video of it happening). Just a couple. Shock and awe for those affected.
Logically 9/11 has such video of nuclear involvement because it isn't to be rationally and comprehensively explained by the government nor by other theories (nt). The latter doesn't explain well the buildings it does mention, and ignores others that are major clues... wtc 4,5,6.
The reputation of Dr Andre Gsponer and his life work shouldn't be discounted. Not a word on 9/11, but no official scientific addressing either.
The usgs dust analysis gives hints. The tables show the relevant data, but the omission of explanations for why traces of fission present is what keeps those scientists and agencies from having to lie and perjure themselves.
//
x62 Maxwell C. Bridges : can I inquire into your predisposition?
2023-12-21
Dear Mr Winston Smith,
Writing you from the mountains of Panama on a smartphone as a Testament to the technology and our important discussion. I do want to thank you upfront for your efforts. For all the potential weaknesses you point out, the stronger neu nookiedoo becomes.
Deviating from the topic briefly, can I inquire into your predisposition? For example, what is your relationship to the international journal of 9/11 studies (apology if in error) to which I maintain only a tiny hope of seeing my life's FGNW 9/11 research and work getting published? Also could you please connect together any aliases of yours in communication with me? For example, m.c.bruecke is me, m.c.bridges... my batman but not my Bruce Wayne. What iyho was the Primary mechanism of 9/11 wtc destruction briefly?
When the government thru its agencies and actors, we first assume true then discover where it was incomplete or not true to circle back to our initial assumption. When reports were published, we assume true and should do same vetting cycle. Unfortunately the errors discovered at every corner in a blackhole Manner logically validate nookie doo, fgnw, exotic nuclear weapons.
So this is where neu nookie doo changes the narrative and demands that it be given the same respect, assume it first to be true. It advances the conversation, because it addresses the previous levels of nuclear discourse and their errors. It addresses a wider swath of evidence that, in a blackhole manner, other premises (nt) don't even attempt.
Assuming you have close relationships with the journal, which has promoted almost as end stations the weaker premises by certain leaders with whom losing and discrediting debate has already transpired, tell them to embrace fgnw. In the presense of new information and analysis contrary to our understanding, we have the freedom to change our minds if it contains more truth.
//
x64 Maxwell C. Bridges : we first assume true then discover where it was incomplete or not true
2023-12-22
Correction:
When the government thru its agencies and actors spun its narratives, we first assume true then discover where it was incomplete or not true to circle back to our initial assumption. When reports were published, we assume true and should do same vetting cycle. Unfortunately the errors discovered at every corner in a blackhole Manner logically validate nookie doo, fgnw, exotic nuclear weapons.
// mcb
x66 Winston Smith : current thinking is that nanocomposites were used
2023-12-23
I don't have any connection to the Journal of 9/11 Studies or IC911.org, except the latter asked me to contribute my FOIA records to answer certain questions going forward.
My various accounts are not nefarious. They were set up at different times to serve one purpose or another and help to keep things/subjects separated. I don't appreciate some on-line personalities who feel like it is their duty to connect the dots. Know me by my fruits. I'm a regular guy without any credentials. I'm unnaturally very persistent.
My current thinking is that nanocomposites were used to destroy the towers and perhaps at the Pentagon as well. Propellants, incendiaries and explosives all can be made with slight fine-tuning.
x68 Maxwell C. Bridges : No nefarious connections were assumed
2023-12-23
Dear Mr Winston Smith,
No nefarious connections were assumed. More a matter on how you should be addressed. Or if you are a team.
I wanted to believe in nt, and championed it for awhile. But upon closer inspection, it comes up short in explaining the brisance of pulverizaton and the duration of hot spots. (Refer to "nanothermite" footnote. ) Those who promote it have no useful speculation into its placement and configuration that can explain evidence in the nist/fema videos. It ignores wtc 4,5,6. It ignores evidence of fission/ fusion, the massive energy on display.
Its champions do not acknowledge nt weaknesses, like its massive overkill quantities and resulting overkill logistics. They do not legitimately take on other 9/11 theories, from deep underground nukes to dew from above, let alone nuclear dew from within (fgnw). They out themselves as being insincere and closed-minded because they are promoting a limited hangout agenda (because they know "9/11 nuclear anything" if proven can have figurative nuclear fallout today, not just on the perpetrators and propagandists, but more acutely immediately on the ae911truth core of the 9/11 truth movement who should have known better and been more persistent with their nuclear research rabbit holes.)
Yeah, it is damning for Chandler, Coste, Gage, ic911, ae911truth, Dr Jones. Even Dr. Judy Wood.
I built on the previous levels of 9/11 nuclear discourse, exposed errors from the naysayers and their premises, described both the destruction and mechanisms thereof properly, address far more evidence rationally and logically, and advance the discussion to a new level. It is quite telling the blackhole treatment.
Have a great holiday.
//
x70 Winston Smith : had a loose knit team
2023-12-24
We had a loose knit team scattered all around the world, maybe eitght at most, but that is not functioning any longer. Just me.
deep underground nukes>> No evidence of basement slab compromise.
to dew from above, >> No explanation as to the power source for this amazing theory
let alone nuclear dew from within (fgnw). >> I already pointed out the inconsistencies, namely isolated and continuous ejections on multiple floors, instead of what would make sense-- most windows blown at the same level.
All we have is nanochips and testimonies about explosions. Maybe the FGNW were coupled with NT. Try to develop a theory that covers all available evidence or collect new evidence supporting the theory.
I don't think it reduces the scientists' conclusions. They said what they thought was accurate at the time given the limited evidence at their disposal. Wood has only speculations, no hard evidence. Many of her conclusions are just wrong (toasted cars on FDR Drive, glowing, no heat, frothing, cheetos, wheat chex, etc....)
Keep digging. You may be on to something significant.
--Dave
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : don't even have nano chips in the dust really
2023-12-25
You don't even have nano chips in the dust really. Not in quantities needed to address anomalÃas. Percent of tiny iron sphere in dust was nt justification, which fgnw more easily at requisite power levels explains.
Dr Jones said nt needed to be mixed with something more brisance like rdx, then gave excuses why he wouldn't put the effort into relooking at his own samples for that something. He also said something else maintained the Hotspots not just nt, but never looked for it, either. (You have been duped by a PhD.)
The fgnw premise involves multiple devices per detonation level and many detonation levels as per the seeming squibs ahead of demolition wave. Thus it explains the continuous detonation but spaced many floors apart.
The fema NIST Videos have the most damning proof that nt was not the primary mechanism of destruction. Its agents don't even attempt to speculate how nt was positioned to accomplish such wonders. Ergo nt is wrong.
You imply nuclear DEW from within the towers has the same issues for power sources as abl and beams from space. Great job of not understanding the fgnw paper.
Dave, you keep digging into my thesis, because you prove that you haven't read it as closely as you should. Be sure to expand the footnotes and follow links to source documents or videos.
From now on owing to its staying power, fgnw can be assumed to be true. It addresses the previous nuclear discussions, identifies their errors, and advances understanding to the next level.
Resistance is futile.
// mcb
Part 3: FGNW Discussions with Craig McKee, Adam Ruff, Willy Whitten
x74 Maxwell C. Bridges : hope to get published in https://ic911.org
2023-10-23
Dear Mr. McKee,
Attached is my latest FGNW article that I hope to get published in https://ic911.org
"9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons"
The body of the piece comes in at just over 2K words. Very brief for me. Meets their guidelines. (But when all the references are expanded, it doesn't. We'll see what they say.)
You'll want to copy it locally and then open it from there into your browser, so that the embedded Javascript needed for the reference links will work. (If you open it from the email attachment, Javascript is disabled in that view.)
How about being both a 9/11 Truther and a 9/11 Journalist in your actions with it? A review for typo's would be nice, logic errors, mistakes.
Have a great weekend?
// mcb
202310_mcb_fgnw_text_04.htm
x76 Maxwell C. Bridges : latest write-up of mine about 9/11 exotic nuclear weapons
2023-11-05
Willy Whitten, Adam Ruff
2023-11-05
Dear T&Sers for the old school,
Thought you'd be interested in this latest write-up of mine about 9/11 exotic nuclear weapons.
You'll need to save the HTML file locally so that the browser will execute the embedded Javascript. If you launch it from your email client, it'll probably not allow Javascript to be run, so you'll see the text and not be able to unhide the references.
All the best
//mcb
911_exoticnukesFGNW.htm
Part 4: FGNW Discussions with Craig McKee, Simon Falkner
x78 Maxwell C. Bridges : student of agent tactics
2023-12-22
https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/pfbid0iknxRyyKBw4yTc5mcJkhEBYB6c5meXGLnubcQobB5AJYEgP7s5u6mhT82ffF5V7Dl?comment_id=288185177061447
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, your "wiggle" discussion opponent of late -- unless you know him to be more flesh-and-blood -- seemed a bit bot-ish in its twitter-length responses of little depth, and aided by Mr. Coste.
As a student of agent tactics, did you noticed that the wiggling happened on an inconsequential thread, when a parallel thread (started by me) a serious charge of lies and distortions is leveled against Mr. Gage (and by extension applies to Mr. Wayne Coste)?
//
x80 Craig McKee : used to Falkner spouting nonsense
2023-12-22
Craig McKee
Maxwell C. Bridges I guess I'm so used to Falkner spouting nonsense that I didn't note that he might be doing so more egregiously in one place than another. I know that Falkner is credited with writing papers for AE911Truth along with another agent-like character, Adam Taylor. So if he's a bot here, someone is writing those papers for him. Or he's real and simply an operative, which is what I think.
x82 Simon Falkner : none of which are possible for a bot
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Craig McKee You keep it as an open question whether or not my existence as a real person is confirmed even though you know that working with AE and writing articles for it entails conference calls plus direct communication with the editor - none of which are possible for a bot. Have you ever asked any of your AE colleagues whether or not they ever talked to me directly? Susan, Andy, Kelly David, Richard? I have also told you several times that both Niels Harrit and Richard Gage have met me in person - and all of the above easily definitevily rules out a bot. Do you intentionally keep this false rumour going about me possibly being a bot or some sort of a fake person? Or do you think Richard and Niels are lying about having met me, or that they would lie to you about me if you asked them? Do you think it is ethical to keep this sort of a rumour going when you know that you can confirm it as false just by talking to people that you work with? Wayne Coste Are you a bot? Obviously it must be impossible for Craig to confirm that either of us are real since the super secret cabal would obviously simply fake photos and videos of us? And any witnesses that would confirm our story would obviously just be part of the cabal😂
x84 Craig McKee : address this to the person who questioned you
2023-12-22
Craig McKee
Simon Falkner I never said you aren't real, Simon. Why don't you address this to the person who questioned you.
x86 Simon Falkner : another transparent strawman
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Craig McKee said "I never said you aren't real"---- Answer: Oh wow another transparent strawman from you, how impressive - I did not say that you said Im not real, I said you "keep it as an open question" even though you know better (and that is called lying by omission). A strawman is just a form of a lie - and you still actually think lying via one is clever - "truther." It is kind of sad that you do not see how pathetic your behavior is.
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : written some things for AE9/11Truth?
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, is it true what Mr. Craig McKee wrote about you? That you might have written some things for AE9/11Truth?
Do tell!
//
2023-12-22
Craig McKee
Simon Falkner Yawn...
x92 Simon Falkner : caught lying yet again
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Craig McKee Yes "yawn" is the only thing you have got to say when you get caught lying yet again, "truther." What a reputation..
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "is it true"---ANSWER: How about you figure out how to do a little research of the most basic type? Hmm? Why take my word for it when you can verify the truth yourself with a little foogling? And why when you know that your bud Craig here can also confirm or deny your stupid rumour? Oh, you don't care that he is lying and find no need to confront him about it? Apparently none of his 5 remaining followers do. JHC, you two morons think your BS is clever.😀
x94 Maxwell C. Bridges : I have standing to accuse the writing team
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, first my apologies for implying that your behavior under the other posting was bot-ish. Second thank you for throwing yourself under the bus and taking full responsibility for the blatant disinformation efforts that ae911truth produced like FAQ #15 (not the only example, but where we can scope limit the discussion.)
As a vetted member of ae911truth, I have standing to accuse the writing team (which is how credit is given) for FAQ #15 lies and distortions.
In the other posting where Mr RichardGage911 was participating, I started a thread for him to address my criticism and was having him as ae911truth leadership take responsibility. You can defend your (his and your) actions under that thread. (Parallel thread from the wiggling long thread you had with Mr Craig McKee.)
//
x96 Simon Falkner : Nobody gives a flying f###
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges Nobody gives a flying f### what you think or what you claim is truth or disinformation: The point is that both of you alleged super-uber-truthers exposed the fact that you spread a very false and stupid rumour like that, even though one of you (Craig) knows for a fact that it is false, and the other (you) could know it with the most basic research. Also interesting is the fact that you obviously do not care that Craig lied to you by omission by not telling you that he knows for a fact that I am not a bot.
x98 Maxwell C. Bridges : led me to the wrong conclusion
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, Your bot-ish actions in the other thread led me to the wrong conclusion about you. Mr. Craig McKee corrected me in my mistaken beliefs, and in turn I apologized to you. Why are your panties still in a wad?
Or more importantly, why are you wiggling yourself into a lather about bot-insinuations that I am no longer making and have apologized for, when the far deeper charges of your professional lies and distortions in your role as tech writer for FAQ #15 remain on the table unaddressed?
BTW, your unhinged response that can't acknowledge the apology exposes another lie about "nobody caring"; you cared.
You just didn't care enough when it really mattered in writing that FAQ #15 to do some actual nuclear research. Ever hear of neutron bombs that were fear-hyped in the 1970's and 80's? Well, if so, why did your FAQ not mention them? (That's just for starters.)
Lies and distortions. I'm holding you to account.
//
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : calling out AE9/11Truth for lies and distortions
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, (where'd you go? Why does FB not tag you when I type your name? If you are not a bot, then you are a weasel in not defending your own professional and personal actions.)
In case you missed it, here's a repeat of me calling out AE9/11Truth for lies and distortions.
+++++
Dear Mr. RichardGage911, former leader of AE9/11Truth and responsible for the integrity of the publications with the AE9/11Truth branding, you wrote to a different participant in different thread on some other issue the discussion standard:
"... it is unfair to accuse me publicly of 'lies and distortions' without even one reference."
[Okay, my FGNW hobby-horse wants a bite of that, but in this new thread that doesn't mess with that other discussion on 'lies and distortions'. You can specify where this PUBLIC conversation should be resumed.]
As a vetted member of AE9/11Truth, I am hereby PUBLICLY accusing you, Mr. Gage from your leadership and steering roles at AE9/11Truth, of 'lies and distortions' in the [limit for this discussion] AE9/11Truth FAQ #15.
- Scope-limited from the onset to "nuclear blast." [Discussed in Reference Note 8 of the blog article.]
- Lies of omission not considering neutron devices and all things FGNW derived from them. [Also applies to Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. James Fetzer...
Discussed in chapter "The Nuclear Evolution of FGNW" of the blog article. A major omission from so-called "thorough" literature reviews on nuclear weapons is Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article(s) published in reputable science journal(s), link in Reference Note 5 of the blog article.]
- Lies of omission and cherry-picking of Jeffrey Prager in the FAQ's footnotes. [The FAQ should have addressed the very Prager quotes about the USGS dust data that are provided in chapter "Evidence of Fission" and Reference Note 13 of the blog article.]
You wrote in a very Trumpian manner: "Let the record show that that [other accusation without even one reference] is because there are none [lies and distortions]."
Let the record be amended to show that in FAQ #15 alone, I've identified three major "lies and distortion" just for starters [and to keep us focused.]
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
====
It'll be interesting to see what you do at this point.
Whether or not you wrote any words in FAQ #15, I think we can say you reviewed it, it was under your authority, and you have been standing behind it. But you still might try to throw someone else under the bus.
My sincere hope is that you will take my hobby-horse seriously, acknowledge its evidence, recognize that FGNW explains all of the evidence better than NT ever could, and PUBLICLY apologize for having mislead the public and the AE9/11Truth membership who trusted you and the AE9/11Truth organization to follow Truth on 9/11 where ever it led.
Then you will spend the rest of your future long life and career in 9/11 Truth activism promoting a nuclear energized message (joke) "nuclear blasting" public awareness to new levels of Truth.
//
9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x102 Maxwell C. Bridges : FAQ #15 lies and distortions
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, When I talk of the blackhole treatment that my hobby-horse receives, did you see how quickly Mr. Simon Falkner made his Christmas Eve departure from this thread? His faux-feelings were hurt for being called a bot.
But being called out for FAQ #15 lies and distortions -- that I only assume he was on the ae9/11truth writing team -- is too much for him. He, like Wayne Coste, does not stand up and defend his professional work from legitimate criticism.
Please tell me that this is registering with you.
//
x104 Simon Falkner : bot-insinuations
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "bot-insinuations that I am no longer making and have apologized for" and then only 12 minutes later (!!!) literally again making the same insinuation "If you are not a bot, then you are a weasel"................Your words mean nothing, you are just coo-coo coo-coo but it is adorable how offended you get when the shit you throw out comes back to hit you in the face😂 Have a nice day sweety
x106 Maxwell C. Bridges : exactly what an agent would do
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, Even with me exercising my super-powers of being naive and trusting which would have me take your word at face value that you are not a bot, you make shallow rebuttals still on the bot-issue, while ignoring the more serious charges of your professional deceit as exhibited in the lies and distortions of FAQ #15 that you claim to have been on the ae9/11truth writing team.
That is exactly what an agent would do, and certainly any bots that they might command.
Bots don't follow link, go into details, or defend their own premises.
Thank you for this early Christmas present of validating that agents (and bots) will go to great efforts to give FGNW the blackhole treatment even today. Such a great gift you give in imploding the ae9/11truth writing team, even better than my balcony view of the ships lining up to enter the Panama Canal.
My 9/11 hobby-horse -- "neu nookiedoo", FGNW, exotic nuclear weapons -- without even trying has put its hoofprints on your ass.
//
+++++
https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/pfbid02qvtJ4LT5tCwuVsEs6VdPDTgDwBHW5JLunKgHo9GgZbjuwGNn37MLkSsZBma6bCC2l
h2023-12-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr Simon Falkner, when infiltration is discussed, I am still waiting for you to defend ae911truth FAQ#15 for its deceit. You. On the ae911truth writing team. Defend it.
We can start with its "nuclear blast" scope limit. Throw the responsible party under the bus for that canard. Who done it?
//
+++++
x108 Simon Falkner : stuff set up directly to divide and undermine the organization that you work for
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Craig McKee said "I do think there is disinformation on the WTC stuff but it's not from the "respectable leaders" of the movement."--- ANSWER: Oh really? Let's see you call out some examples: How about the most obvious disinformation ever = "no WTC planes"? How about the stuff set up directly to divide and undermine the organization that you work for and its thermite evidence - Judy Wood and mini-nukes?
x110 Maxwell C. Bridges : Admit to FAQ #15 errors
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
2023-12-29
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, I agree that Dr. Judy Wood -- who connected no dots, drew no conclusions, and did a shitty job of nuclear research -- was set up directly to divide and undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement. Remember that initially she was partnered through Scholars for 9/11 Truth with disinfo agents Dr. James Fetzer and... DR. STEVEN JONES.
I also agree that "mini-nukes" and "deep-underground-nukes" were also disinformation efforts, because neither explains the observable evidence and neither were described accurately.
And your very own efforts on the AE9/11Truth Writing Team contributed to the disinformation -- lies and distortion -- with FAQ #15.
- Scope-limited from the onset to "nuclear blast." [Discussed in Reference Note 8 of the linked article.]
- Lies of omission not considering neutron devices and all things FGNW derived from them. [Also applies to Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. James Fetzer... Discussed in chapter "The Nuclear Evolution of FGNW" of the linked article. A major omission from so-called "thorough" literature reviews on nuclear weapons is Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article(s) published in reputable science journal(s), link in Reference Note 5 of the blog article.]
- Lies of omission and cherry-picking of Jeffrey Prager in the FAQ's footnotes. [The FAQ should have addressed the very Prager quotes about the USGS dust data that are provided in chapter "Evidence of Fission" and Reference Note 13 of the blog article.]
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
FGNW may very be in the category of "exotic nuclear weapons" just like they are in the category of "directed energy weapons". But you spent no effort researching them, describing them accurately, and applying that to the observed destruction and the requisite logistics.
Your choices are:
- Admit to FAQ #15 errors and apologize for having misled the AE9/11Truth rank-and-file membership as well as the general public.
- Defend FAQ #15 and AE9/11Truth against the "lies and distortions" that it represents. [It won't go well for you professionally or personally.]
Of course, doing nothing and avoiding me is an option. Not a good one. Because I'm a religious fanatic (fanatical about Truth) and am persistent AF, becaue I'm real and Truth is my agenda. Any avoidance of rational discussion with me will default into victory for my 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons hobby horse.
//
x112 Maxwell C. Bridges : a slot to make a presentation
2023-12-22
https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/pfbid02dEhcsrhdGJn7z4CSzzDxzhG2x4C78tL4huf2yQ6GQwn1CM3JWhuLW4PSdHkD5Fcfl?comment_id=599292668999889
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr McKee, how does one get invited to this regular conference and a slot to make a presentation? //
x114 Simon Falkner : Why do you not write for his truthandshadows web?
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges McKee will organize that for you since he supervises that whole thing. Come to think of it, why stop there? Why do you not write for his truthandshadows web? Its dying down and surely he would welcome someone willing to post new articles..
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : my understanding evolved further
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr Simon Falkner, I have been published on t&s back when I was asking questions about Dr wood's work. But since my understanding evolved further and a nuclear powered premise further honed, for many reasons on Mr McKee's side he did not allow it to happen. He felt out of his league with nuclear topics despite my work having tutorials. His biggest argument was his purpose was bringing public awareness to 9/11 deceit that he thought the Pentagon highlighted best rather than getting bogged down in demolition anomalies and details. And people like Mr Adam Ruff were bending his ear to exclude divisive theories that bring out trolls, agents, and their last resort nastiness to implode attempts at rational discussion.
On a very related topic, you were called out for your lies and distortions on FAQ 15, yet you put zero effort to defend or amend your work against the legitimate criticism leveled against it. Don't worry, such would be a small part of my presentation as well.
//
x118 Simon Falkner : too coo-coo for his blog
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges So McKee found someone that he considers too coo-coo for his blog - that's something! You obviously take yourself very seriously but I do not care about your opinions. IF, however, I ever get interested in a discussion about your Vatic Master and your grand conspiracy project and Pleiadian aliens, I will for sure read your articles about those subjects and send you a message - Don't hold your breath though. And oh, I did not write #15 but keep ranting about it anyway - maybe the aliens will hear you and talk to you about it.
x120 Maxwell C. Bridges : a Pleiadian star seed sent here to represent Truth
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr Simon Falkner, If you didn't write FAQ #15, then you do not have to defend it. But more importantly, you ought to be able to objectively review the criticism and acknowledge its legitimacy or not. Consider it a test of both your objectivity and integrity. The credibility of the entire AE9/11Truth writing staff is on the line.
Did you have a hand in FAQ #3 (I believe), the one that tries to debunk all of Dr. Judy Wood's work without quoting from her book/website, without re-purposing images from her book/website, without any indication that is AE9/11Truth writing team even smelled the fresh ink from her book's crack, then spent 40% of its already meager word-count plugging nano-thermite?
This isn't to say that Dr. Wood's work -- like all 9/11 information -- doesn't contain disinformation; it is saying that it required a thorough and legitimate debunking while rescuing & re-purposing nuggets of truth, which it did not receive at the hands of AE9/11Truth. As a vetted member of AE9/11Truth, I expected more professionalism out of its output.
I do not know if Mr. McKee considers me coo-coo, but if he did, I'm sure he would have cut off all contact years ago, blocked me like Mr. Adam Ruff does. IMHO the real issue was that my deviant premises would bring out the agents and trolls who, after utterly failing to bring rational and legitimate counter-points, would result in unhinged coo-coo behavior -- forum flooding, forum sliding, anything to distract and bury -- as per their agenda. Although my comments were infrequent even if verbose, the resulting over-reaction from my detractors (including Mr. Ruff and his MVP Mr. HybridRogue1) imploded the comments and "was a turn-off to newbies."
FTR, the Vatic Master passed away several years ago. I helped her establish the Vatic Project and inherited it from her at her passing. Unfortunately, she wasn't very discerning regarding re-publishing disinformation, which only gave me issues when it wasn't labeled as such. I mean, sometimes knowing up front that something is disinformation makes it all the more valid to dive into and consider: what makes it disinformation? what are its nuggets of truth? what purposes does it serve?
At any rate, the requisite clean-up and labeling of the content in the Vatic Project exceeded by many orders of magnitude my available bandwidth and interests.
Yes, I am a Pleiadian star seed sent here to represent Truth, albeit in my tiny niche area of 9/11 Truth.
You wrote: "You obviously take yourself very seriously but I do not care about your opinions."
Sure, I take myself "very seriously", whatever that means. I'm not playing the joker in the forums. I read, research, analyze; I'm open to information that contradicts my understanding.
You obviously don't take yourself very seriously. Your reply disproves your contention about "not caring about" my opinions. My criticism of AE9/11Truth isn't "opinion" but fact, listed out point-by-point what leads to the conclusions of deceit. And you, joker that you are? Haven't acknowledged a single one [before the question of validity is raised.]
Deep-down proof of AE9/11Truth (and your) deceit is the old disinformationalist canard in action that "if you don't acknowledge something as even existing, you don't have to address it in any rational, logical, and legitimate fashion."
//
x122 Simon Falkner : rest my case
2023-12-22
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Yes, I am a Pleiadian star seed sent here to represent Truth, albeit in my tiny niche area of 9/11 Truth. That and my sincerity are what makes me formidable." --- ANSWER: I rest my case.😀
x124 Maxwell C. Bridges : agreed, I am serious; you are not
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr Simon Falkner, What was the case you are resting? Must not have been very strong if no one knows what you are rabbiting about. The jury has already observed how you cherry-pick and flame-bait while weaseling out of addressing the more serious charges of AE9/11Truth lies and distortions. Straight out of Mr. Wayne Coste's playbook.
As was already agreed, I am serious; you are not.
I'm going to hold you to your resting of your case, whatever it was.
//
x126 Craig McKee : your characterizations of my reaction to your theory
2023-12-22
Craig McKee
Maxwell C. Bridges As for teleconference, you can do that by just PMing me and we can discuss it.
I'm not sure I agree with your characterizations of my reaction to your theory. Let's not forget that you were able to post hundreds of comments on T&S, so one can't say I denied you the chance to express yourself there. I also didn't say that the nuclear issue was beyond me; I said that in order to debate it effectively I would have to do some serious research. And I just choose to put my time and efforts elsewhere. As I have made clear before, I consider that the issue of whether the towers were blown up has already been proven, and I'm not interested in plunging into the question of what type of explosive devices were used. Others are perfectly welcome to do so.
Also, my lack of inclination to do down this road is not the result of Adam Ruff's input, although I greatly value his opinion.
x128 Maxwell C. Bridges : a fact that I am most grateful of
2023-12-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr Craig McKee, Correct indeed you are, a fact that I am most grateful of, I was "able to post hundreds of comments on T&S, so one can't say I denied you the chance to express yourself there."
You wrote: "I also didn't say that the nuclear issue was beyond me; I said that in order to debate it effectively I would have to do some serious research."
Wrong with both sentences. I'll drag up the quotes if you want, but you were saying you knew nothing about nuclear physics. I was the one encouraging you by saying that sufficient knowledge of nuclear physics was certainly within your comprehension skills. Mostly because I have already written up the tutorials on the matter, and I provided you my raw research into DEW and nuclear devices. I've done the initial legwork and given you shoulders to stand on.
... "in order to debate it effectively..." Nope. "Debate" was never a word you used with me. I used the word with you to prod you into action on several occasions. But on even far more occasions, I called it a Jefferson-Franklin style conversation. On still others, I called it an interview. Not knowing where your beliefs really are, I really didn't and still don't know what to expect. You've been alluding participating or allowing a corral for it to play.
Far be it from me to stand in your way of doing "some serious research" (into nuclear weapons), I think you over-estimate the effort required. Once you've read my short-form tutorials (that used Wikipedia) and Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-review article, you'll have the basics and all that you require. Sure, research farther on your own, but don't be using that as a procrastination excuse.
"Some serious research" from you would be nice, but it isn't required for me to give a presentation to your group. Setting aside any validation of my hobby-horse, if deemed a useful interesting topic, my presentation can assess certain cabal members and their misdeeds which were far more egregous in their WTC destruction efforts. They talked the big science talk, but upon inspection they didn't walk the big science walk.
You want to save AE9/11Truth? As a vetted member of AE9/11Truth who studied their "science works", I'm telling you that its rot was present at the onset with Dr. Steven Jones "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes on the WTC Towers." He accepted unquestioned and unchallenged several government reports with great flaws, describes the mini-nukes improperly, doesn't mention neutron devices and their FGNW exotic offspring. This is before he introduced fully his nano-thermite limited-hang-out, which he admitted needed to be mixed with something to achieve the observed brisance and that something else maintained the hot-spots. In both cases, he failed to investigatge into those "something(s)" or tell his mions to do so.
I could go on, like with Mr. David Chandler and how he screwed the pooch and impeached his integrity with Dr. Wood's work and my work. Try as I might, a legitimate review from him was allusive.
However, I think that my presentation -- essentially me verbally stepping through my latest FGNW article -- will impact the credibility of a lot of people, including Mr. Richard Gage.
You'll learn why I say that AE9/11Truth should be "figuratively" nuked in a spectacular fashion, only to be help up in the future as excellent examples of government infiltration and disinformation.
//
x130 Craig McKee : very clear if you're paying attention
2024-01-18
Craig McKee
It's very clear if you're paying attention.
Meme: "There is a cabal working to suppress the clear evidence that the U.S. government fakes a plane crash at the Pentagon. Its latest incarnation is call the International Center for 9/11 Justice. They want to destroy AE911Truth and take control of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Don't let them."
https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/pfbid0fFMABwNQW5Da9EDDpPQGqBV4vaXWCussZZ9JWAAoHf3RcPrypDtaA2UeSajEdcb3l">
x132 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE911Truth had poison at its core from the get-go
2024-01-18
Maxwell C. Bridges
For the latter-day lurker readers, AE911Truth had poison at its core from the get-go (in its WTC "milk-toast" explanations), so it really isn't worth saving. But it is worth being memorialized as a clever disinformation limited-hang-out that kept woke Truthers passified for a decade-and-a-half.
When you, Mr. Craig McKee, memorialize AE911Truth properly with, say, a year-long wake and explain the (pun-intended) "radioactive waste" at its core, it will also legitimately "radioactively" infect the International Center for 9/11 Justice... and others.
Time to make your journalistic endeavors "nuclear-powered" and more effective, and watch your Pentagon efforts get "nuclear-charged" as well. You've been kicking this can too often down the road. Take neu nookiedoo for a test ride.
Let me make it easy for you. Let's hash out the details about me giving your monthly 9/11 Group a presentation about my FGNW hobby-horse. Then all you will be doing is giving a fair platform, and it is all me presenting and defending my theory. For the latter-day lurker watchers. Let's see what my detractors come up with; they all have been given links to that evolution of my thought; they have had time to study it. So should be a good "nuclear-energized" show, your best one yet!
//
Part 5: FGNW Discussions with Craig McKee, Adam Ruff, Gene Laratonda
x134 Adam Ruff : trying to flood and overwhelm
2024-01-14
Adam Ruff
CLEARLY Maxwell Bridges and 9/11 Revisionist are trying to flood and overwhelm the comment section with their disinformation by constantly posting such long diatribes in between every single good comment here. It is a disinformation tactic they are using which makes it APPEAR that they are the most knowledgeable commenters when in reality they are just the most prolific spreaders of disinformation. In fact you can see how obsessive compulsive they are by the sheer volume and length of their comments. I recommend that anyone reading this comment section just skip their comments altogether. You will save lots of time and headaches trying to figure out their Alice in Wonderland "logic" which all leads back ultimately to a dead end piled high with BS.
x136 Maxwell C. Bridges : CLEARLY Mr. Adam Ruff is the true disinformation agent
2024-01-24
Maxwell C. Bridges
Mr. Ruff should not conflate the actions of Ms. 9/11 Revisionist with me. That is a classic disinformation tactic. I am in an entirely different class, because:
- I legitimately debunk Ms. Revisionist's Woodsian-DEW premise; she won't even acknowledge my FGNW exotic nuclear weapons premise.
- Ms. Revisionist is a "prolific spreaders of disinformation"; I am not. Examples, look at her substack presence versus mine.
- Ms. Revisionist doesn't acknowledge weaknesses in her premise and blocks those who point them out. I actively seek out debate on my premise precisely so its weaknesses can be pointed out and it can be legitimately debunked.
It is a blatant lie of Mr. Ruff to assert that my comments were inserted "in between every single good comment." My comments were not, which any lurker reader can readily verify just by skimming. Moreover, my comments were on topic and in response to either the article or other threads already in progress. Most important of all, my comments were "good comments," and there is no evidence of me inserting comments in between my own good comments.
My comments, despite being lengthy, did not "flood and overwhelm the comment section," because of "expand full comment" links.
Mr. Ruff wrote: "you can see how obsessive compulsive they are by the sheer volume and length of their comments."
For the sake of discussion, let's take that statement at face-value. "Obsessive compulsive" doesn't discredit anything. Sheer volume and length of comments also doesn't discredit anything. In fact, such character traits in, say, Dr. David Ray Griffin is what made him the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement in his many 9/11 books, like "Omissions and Distortions" (of the Popular Mechanics disinfo piece.)
Did Mr. Ruff also condemn Mr. McKee for his obsessive compulsive actions: Truth-and-Shadows, Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors, and two-plus Facebook groups where Mr. McKee has a sheer volume of postings and comments? Did Mr. Ruff condemn Mr. McKee for the sheer volume of his web presence or for the length of Mr. McKee's comment in the form of the article under which these comments appear? No, Mr. Ruff did not.
As long as Mr. Ruff is calling out "disinformation tactics", such would be labeling a premise (that he refuses to read) as "disinformation" without pointing out why it is wrong. "You make a claim, you defend the claim."
Given that my comments go into specifics, if Mr. Ruff isn't going to address the specifics -- because he brags about not reading my comments and recommends "that anyone reading this comment section just skip their comments altogether" --, then Mr. Ruff has FORFEITED his right to comment on any topic that I bring up.
Mr. Ruff exhibits the classic "disinformation tactics" of avoiding meaningful and on-topic discussions by instigating flame wars instead and hypnoticly labeling things "disinfo" without details.
CLEARLY Mr. Adam Ruff is the true disinformation agent.
//
x138 Adam Ruff : I will not be reading any response you give
2024-01-14
Adam Ruff
Craig as usual your article is spot on. I do notice you attract a lot of trolls though whenever you post something. Getting all that flak must mean that you are over the target though. I would like to thank you for writing this and thank a couple of the commenters below for their great insights. In particular Jeffrey Strahl and John O'Malley. To the trolls pushing disinformation here I would just like to say you are outmatched and clearly not winning over any converts. The nuke theorists (AKA Maxwell Bridges) and the DEW theorists (AKA 9/11 revisionist) are transparent and totally unconvincing. Mr. Strahl is making short work of your BS. Thanks Mr Strahl and thanks Mr. McKee.
P.S. Maxwell - This comment was NOT an invitation to start a long discussion with me or for me to read your obsessive compulsive lengthy diatribes. Know this before you begin compulsively writing to me: I will not be reading any response you give nor do I want to discuss anything with you.
x140 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ruff the troll will be HELD to his promises
2024-01-24
Maxwell C. Bridges
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote to Mr. McKee: "I do notice you attract a lot of trolls though whenever you post something."
And quite quickly within his brief two comments, he demonstrates that he is the biggest TROLL. How so?
First of all, he comes to the discussion literally months after the fact to drop his shit. "Shit", because he drops hypnotic suggestion (e.g., "x is disinformation") without any substantiation. Flies in the very face of "rules for discussion" that Mr. Ruff has repeatedly asserted: "you make a claim, you defend the claim."
Talk about the proud high school graduate pawning himself, he brags: "I will not be reading any response you give..." This is not an isolated position statement identifying the (low) level of Mr. Ruff's objectivity. He's repeatedly bragged (going back over a decade) about not reading my comments, not reading my premises, and not reading my supporting material. He's prone to making derogatory statements about various books [Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre Gsponer,...] while at the same time boasting neither had he read them nor would he ever read them.
Mr. Ruff the troll calls out participants by name with his libel and then seems to think that isn't "an invitation" for rebuttal.
Mr. Ruff the troll takes issue with the length of my comments. The substack technology of "expand full comment" quite literally prevents lengthy comments from "flooding" for anybody skimming the comments. In addition to supporting many commenting levels, substack has "Continue Thread" features that also hides deeper levels of discussion unless desired by the latter-day lurker-reader.
Mr. Ruff the troll and "forum flooder" posted two (short) top-level comments in a row on the same day. Because activity in the discussion had already subsided, clearly the first comment could have been post-edited with the contents of his second comment. Or his second comment could have been in response to his first, starting a thread. Way to pawn himself "forum flooder."
Proud high school graduate that Mr. Ruff the troll is, his misguided views think that when a comprehensive argument is required, it somehow serves the readers and forum BEST when broken into a series of twitter-length comments in a row shot-from-the-hip [no offline composition and editin.] FTR, that would be "forum flooding" and "forum sliding."
Mr. Ruff the troll mischaracterizes the actual outcome of my two discussions here, which I'm sure we can attribute to the truthfulness of his pompous assertions of not reading my comments.
I was involved in discussions with Ms. 9/11 Revisionist and Mr. Jeffrey Strahl. Both were losing (or lost) their debates with me, and both have blocked me as a cherry-on-top of my victory.
Unlike Mr. Ruff the troll, I can debunk legitimately Woodsian-DEW, although FGNW are technically in the category of DEW. Ms. Revisionist didn't like that I knew Dr. Wood's work better than she did and could point out its many weaknesses, which would necessitate any sincere seeker of truth to acknowledge such facts and evolve their views. Woodsian-DEWers proclaim as a strength that Dr. Wood draws no conclusions, but then get all flustered when it is pointed out that "no conclusions means it isn't an end-station." Dr. Wood did a shitty job of researching both DEW and nuclear devices.
As for Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, his efforts were very much like Mr. Ruff the troll in that he could only make derogatory hypnotic statements against 9/11 nuclear involvement but couldn't be bothered to READ what my premise and its substantiating material actually say... And then blocked me.
Mr. Ruff wrote: "To the trolls pushing disinformation here I would just like to say you are outmatched and clearly not winning over any converts."
I concur. The trolls of Ms. Revisionist, Mr. Strahl, and Mr. Ruff are outmatched and clearly not winning over any converts.
For curious latter-day lurker-readers now that this is already below the fold of "expand full comment", let me point out how Mr. Ruff the troll is also Mr. Ruff the habitual liar.
Mr. Ruff wrote on 2014-04-12: "The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again."
Par for his course, obviously hypnotic suggestion. But also a lie, because his 2024-01-14 comments proves he doesn't commit to his own promises.
Here's an updated version of my (2014) rebuttal:
+++ begin
Fine.
- Because Mr. Ruff is out.
- Because Mr. Ruff won't read my comments anyway.
- Because Mr. Ruff won't read the material referenced [as proven with works from Dr. Wood, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Andre Gsponer, and me].
It means that Mr. Ruff FORFEITS the right to even publicly utter 'the nuke theory is a load of crap.'
Most likely, his sources for such erroneous beliefs have already had their errors and omissions exposed by me in my various works that Mr. Ruff can't be bothered to read.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
+++ end
Mr. Ruff wrote: "I will not be reading any response you give nor do I want to discuss anything with you."
Mr. Ruff the troll will be HELD to his promises.
He'll be called a liar if he responds with anything, and a double-liar if his response addresses specifics from this comment that he promised he "will not be reading."
Thus we see how the trolls like Mr. Ruff are outmatched.
//
x142 Craig McKee : Walter Urged Hulsey to quit AE
2024-01-20
Craig McKee
https://truthandshadows.com/2024/01/21/walter-urged-hulsey-to-quit-ae
https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/erasing-ae911truth-international/comments
"a damning January 19, 2023, email from Ted Walter, now the executive director of the IC911, to Professor Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The message urges Hulsey to abandon his association with AE911Truth, the organization that funded his four-year computer-modeling study on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7."
"As most reading this article know, Hulsey’s ground-breaking UAF study, published in March 2020, concludes that for the building to have come down as it did, all the steel support columns had to have failed at virtually the same instant."
"venomous attacks against AE operations manager Andy Steele and AE board members Kamal Obeid"
"Featured on the IC911’s board are people who have spent the past decade or more suppressing critical evidence concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 – evidence that is essential for proving government complicity in the event. The board members in question are David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Elizabeth Woodworth."
"they reinforce the false and manufactured notion of the IC911 supplanting AE as the Truth Movement’s go-to organization."
"Chandler, Shure, and Ryan are all members of the cabal that has been dividing the Truth Movement for years while they push almost the entire government narrative about what happened at the Pentagon."
"Ryan virtually ignored the possibility of Israeli complicity in 9/11 in his book Another Nineteen. In the introduction to this book (p. 14), he also gave us this pearl: 'For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.'"
"[Walter] He literally searched through years of texts that should have been kept confidential and sent them to others."
"Most so-called 'leaders' of the movement have bent the knee to Chandler as if he has compromising photos of them."
"As I unveil this whole story in the weeks and months ahead, I'll be writing more about the failure of integrity of these 9/11 truth 'celebrities' and those who enable them."
Chandler wrote to Gage often while Gage was still with AE, pressuring him on a number of subjects. He tried to establish a “formal relationship” between AE and Scientists for 9/11 Truth of which Chandler is the “coordinator.” AE declined. He pressured Gage and the AE board to fire me on numerous occasions over a period of years (I’ve worked with the organization in various capacities over the past decade). Chandler also suggested that David and Steele could be agents (or were at least acting that way) because, independent of AE, they added their names to my “No 757 hit the Pentagon” list.
"The emergence of the IC911 and the intensifying campaign to obliterate AE911Truth mark the beginning of another chapter in the battle for the soul of 9/11 Truth Movement. The attempt by the IC911 and Chandler’s Pentagon cabal to rewrite history is just a continuation of two decades of deception and spin. What I’ve described in this article just scratches the surface of the long-term attempt to poison this cause."
https://truthandshadows.com/2024/01/21/walter-urged-hulsey-to-quit-ae/#comment-93025
2024-01-22
x144 Maxwell C. Bridges : Neu nookiedoo just piddled all over the floor in excitement!
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Proof of my realness and humanity, your article brought new information to my attention and has caused me to re-evaluate my view of AE9/11Truth and to evolve further in my beliefs.
Specifically, owing to the scientific rot that I know was planted (by Dr. Steven Jones) at the core of AE9/11Truth's WTC analysis, enforcement by Mr. Richard Gage, and the subtle steering by Mr. David Chandler [whose high school physics videos applied to 9/11 I respect], I was of the opinion that AE9/11Truth deserved to die. You have convinced me otherwise. However, its new leadership must address the scientific rot, excise the fraud, and fix the scientific lax.
You wrote: "... Hulsey’s ground-breaking UAF study, published in March 2020, concludes that for the building [WTC-7] to have come down as it did, all the steel support columns had to have failed at virtually the same instant."
Neu nookiedoo just piddled all over the floor in excitement! "Is Mr. McKee finally going to get it?"
An established fact is that chemical-based explosives have a blast wave as a major portion of their yield, and these have deafening audio signatures within a quarter mile, that all sources of 9/11 lore attest were not present (at those expected audio levels) in WTC-7's destruction. Further, assuming chemical-based explosives (including NT), to achieve the effect of "all the steel support columns failing at virtually the same instant," this is not a trivial logistics endeavor, in a secure facility no less, and not feasible to be installed in half a day with the building on fire.
Guess what can instantly fail all of the steel support columns while also exhibiting a muted audio signature because much less than 20% of its yield was a blast wave and could be feasibly installed in half a day? Oops,... please mind your shoes from the neu nookiedoo in your foot's path.
You wrote: "Featured on the IC911’s board are people who have spent the past decade or more suppressing critical evidence concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 – evidence that is essential for proving government complicity in the event. The board members in question are David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Elizabeth Woodworth."
Oh, it seems that you, Mr. McKee, are demonstrating your super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) -- I knew I wasn't the only one with such super-abilities! It is quite naive to think that Chandler and Ryan (within my scope of knowledge) would only have had ~ONE~ single, solitary, agenda item that "has been dividing the Truth Movement for years."
Did either Chandler or Ryan ever legitimately address (and debunk), say: Woodsian-DEW? Deep-underground nukes? Mini-nukes? This is important, because a legitimate and thorough debunking could have stopped those disinfo theories from distracting the 9/11 group-think. Two reasons why they didn't. (1) They would have had to acknowledge and rescue nuggets of truth contained within those premises, and offer an explanation. (2) Disinfo agents are strictly ordered never to legitimately and thoroughly debunk other disinfo premises.
Did either Chandler or Ryan ever legitimately address, say, the quantities and placement of their NT hobby-horse to explain, say, all of WTC-7's support columns failing at virtually the same instance? They did not.
Here's a fun factoid about Walter and IC911. I submitted in October the latest evolution of my neu nookiedoo premise [as a well-formatted HTML file with Javascript] to the IC911 journal for peer-review and publication. I've received no feedback from IC911, who kept moving deliverable goal-posts. ("Can you give me a Word or PDF file?" As if Word didn't natively support opening HTML files and outputting PDF files! I think they wanted meta-information about me -- Word version, registered software owner, etc. -- that Word inserts into even supposedly "blank" documents.)
You made a promise in your article: "As I unveil this whole story in the weeks and months ahead, I'll be writing more about the failure of integrity of these 9/11 truth 'celebrities' and those who enable them."
The whole story that you write has to include neu nookiedoo, because its active suppression in favor of limited hang-out NT is how those 9/11 truth 'celebrities' got created and gave them street-cred later for steering Pentagon 9/11 group-think. When you write about "the failure of integrity" exhibited by the "celebrities," their incomplete "scientific" WTC work [say, in the form of FAQ's by AE9/11Truth, or of Chandler videos missing obvious highly energetic nuclear speculation] can be exhibit number 1. You're welcome to stand on my shoulders, and ride neu nookiedoo into battle to save the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Chandler? Coste? Walter? Gage?
If my online Batman were inarticulate, illogical, unresearched, unsubstantiated, science-challenged, insincere, flame-baiting, rude, spamming, twitter-length, bot-like, unwavering (in the face of new information and counter-argument), and less-than genuine, it would make perfect sense why those "celebrities" would not want to have 9/11 discourse with me.
But I'm not. I'm the opposite of those, with a high-road legacy of (verbose) sincerity. AE9/11Truth vetted me in its first year as a signer, which gives me standing to question and point out errors. My sincerity has presented neu nookiedoo for slaughter in battle SO MANY TIMES, and she survives and evolves, at the unintended expense of the integrity of her would-be detractors and celebrities.
I left "crazy" out of the list of negative descriptive phrases. Maybe it applies to me, because my neu nookiedoo premise is contrary to both the government and the "consensus celebrity" 9/11 Truth Movement [including AE9/11Truth, IC911, Gage, Chandler, Jones, Wood.] That is somewhat "crazy" behavior, to be opposed to such powers and group-think, particularly the "celebrities" who supposedly offer the alternate and "the whole truth." [And hey, I was also opposed to COVID measures and mRNA technology -- the entire narrative -- for validated scientific reasons.]
I'll embrace "bat-shit crazy" as a self-descriptor not just for the reason above, but because thereafter (1) it loses its power against me in discussion: "You're calling me crazy? Not a slur. This was a given, making you even crazier to engage me." (2) I can bring it up at my later trial "innocent by reason of admitted bat-shit craziness."
Many times over the years, you and others have hyped what appears in your article: "In the introduction to [Mr. Kevin Ryan's] book ('Another Nineteen' p. 14), he also gave us this pearl: 'For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.'"
This is not really something to get your panties in a wad about. How so? "For simplicity." It is a legitimate construct when writing technical papers or doing analysis. Falls into the same category as assumptions. The simplified works comes to its conclusions (and in this case is still damning to official accounts). When a more complex scenario is considered later (by the reader), do conclusions deviate from the simplified version? When the assumptions are re-evaluated and if they are found wrong, do the conclusions remain valid?
In this instance, you wrote: "Ryan virtually ignored the possibility of Israeli complicity in 9/11."
This is a more complex version, might even invalidate some assumptions, and could call into question his conclusions as being complete. THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
WATCH THIS!
===
For simplicity, the 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons premise ("neu nookiedoo") accepts as much of the evidence as possible -- from official and disinfo sources -- while exposing weaknesses, holes, and omissions of the reports where they were published.
For simplicity, FGNW should be assumed to be true and valid from this point onward in all discussions, because the historic "blackhole treatment" against it does not legitimately debunk it; it strengthens it.
You're now welcome to throw the more complex cases, or to circle back to evaluate the evidence substantiating FGNW to see if that FGNW assumption holds.
//
x146 Gene Laratonda : Airing this publicly does nothing
2024-01-22
Gene Laratonda
Airing this publicly does nothing for the greater 9/11 truth movement. This is an absolutely terrible piece of journalism.
x148 Maxwell C. Bridges : see the depths that they were infiltrated
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, I disagree. The greater 9/11 Truth Movement needs to see the depths that they were infiltrated, and established groups (AE9/11Truth) steered away from the Truth.
You decry Mr. McKee's article as being "an absolutely terrible piece of journalism."
Allow me to foist up an example of YOU, Mr. Laratonda, being less than sincere or genuine and you misused your "scientific credentials" in a dubious manner.
For latter-day lurker readers, I have a 9/11 neu nookiedoo premise that has undergone several evolutions. Kudos to Mr. Laratonda for making some learned and seemingly substantiated comments on an earlier version of my premise. The first issue with his comments is that they were "hit-and-run." Mr. Laratonda did not defend them, either on my blog or on Facebook.
The second issue of the six points of his (somewhat "canned") rebuttal is that each were rebutted and proven non-gating, thus invalidating his conclusion and validating FGNW.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/fgnw-discussions-vol-4.html
Stated another way, my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse done didth battle with Mr. Laratonda on scientific matters and prevailed, survived, and got stronger. In contrast, Mr. Laratonda's got weaker with several dings to his integrity for not defending his claims and doing hit-and-runs.
For the curious, here's the latest published evolution of the neu nookiedoo 9/11 hobby-horse, "9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons." And get this, it was submitted to Mr. Laratonda's IC911 group through Mr. Walter for peer-review and publication.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
x150 Gene Laratonda : strategy and activism
2024-01-22
Gene Laratonda
Max,
I'm not about arguing evidence. I'm about strategy and activism. We just had a fantastic 2 1/2 hour discussion in the 9/11 WarRoom last night about the power of the people relative to grand juries. I will be filing my own grand jury petitions in the state of Pennsylvania soon and I encourage you, Craig, and AE911Truth to do the same with whatever evidence you feel will bring about 9/11 justice. Present your evidence for FGNW to a grand jury in the form of a petition. Nothing is stopping you. Arguing with people online about evidence or who is the good guy or who is the bad guy is DOING NOTHING FOR THE GREATER 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT.
Sincerely,
Gene Laratonda
gene@laratonda.com
724.826.1001
911WarRoom.com every Sunday 5PM ET
Gene Laratonda
Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
Letter, by Dr. Steven E. Jones
28 Sept 2006 (Updated Jan. 2007, peer-reviewed, accepted for publication 7 Jan 2007. Appendix A added 16 January 2007.)
https://ic911.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2007.01_hard-evidence-rebudiates-the-hypothesis-that-mini-nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf
x152 Maxwell C. Bridges : cannot ADVANCE a conversation if you continually go BACKWARDS to old material
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, You wrote in one comment: "I'm not about arguing evidence." And then followed that with a second comment that does just that and plops down the discredited work of Dr. Steven Jones.
You cannot ADVANCE a conversation on a topic if you continually go BACKWARDS to old material that has been addressed and DEBUNKED already in subsequent work. FAIL.
No, in order to ADVANCE the conversation to a point of resolution, you have to start with the subsequent work and its valid criticism, and BUILD the discussion (vetting or debunking) from that point.
My criticism of that very paper by Dr. Steven Jones appears in this earlier evolution of my FGNW premise, section 12. "Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
That section 12 advanced the nuclear conversation and is the current state of the conversation. To advance the discussion further, acknowledge the criticism of Dr. Jones paper and either defend Dr. Jones' work or admit the validity of the weaknesses. Move the conversation FORWARD.
On September 21, 2023, you made a six point comment under that very article. None of your six points acknowledged or addressed anything from the "section 12" rebuttal of Dr. Jones' work. And all of your six points were addressed and determined non-gating, advancing the discussion still further. That is the point from which you need to start.
Latter-day lurker readers can come to their own conclusions about: (1) why Facebook communication -- where our discussion started -- was severed; (2) why you didn't defend your six points on my blog, on Facebook, or by email when informed that a response to your six points existed.
You wrote: "Arguing with people online about evidence or who is the good guy or who is the bad guy is DOING NOTHING FOR THE GREATER 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT."
From my perspective watching your efforts to pop-a-squat on my FGNW premise with retread-debunked-disinfo while at the same time not defending your comments/beliefs, you are the bad guy.
Repeating what you wrote: "Arguing with people online about evidence..."
What makes this a "bad guy" statement is that there is no "argument about the evidence." Because everyone uses the same official reports in various degrees about the dust, about tritium, about radioactive elements, about the observed dustification of content, about the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, about the arches/sags & horseshoes & steel doobies.
THE argument is in the extent in which that evidence is down-played, only partially acknowledged (if at all), and pawned-off on disjointed lesser explanations by the "bad guys" instead of extrapolating to see the big picture when all of the evidence is brought together.
The "bad guys" can turn into "good guys" by recognizing the power of the big picture that connects all of the evidence as well as the orchestrated and coordinated deceitful actions to lead the public astray and apologizing.
Identifying the "bad guys" by deceitful actions in one area helps in a guilt-by-association manner identify other areas where the "bad guys" were active but that might also be untrue. "(Dis)trust but verify" to paraphrase Reagan. "In for a penny, in for a pound." If they lie about A, maybe they lied about B which is where they got their 9/11 street-cred.
At any rate, I have advanced the 9/11 nuclear discuss beyond both Dr. Jones' disinfo efforts and your six-point rebuttal. FGNW has been successfully defended and advanced at every discussion opportunity. It is the state-of-the-art.
If you are sincere in your ideas on "the power of the people relative to grand juries" and "filing (your) own grand jury petitions," know that the evidence of FGNW -- that is documented everywhere but somewhat consolidated with me -- will only nuclear-energize your grand jury efforts to bring 9/11 Truth to the fruition you desire.
Division of labor: my job is to consolidate the evidence of 9/11 FGNW. Your job is to take it (and many other thigns) and go to the grand juries.
//
x154 Gene Laratonda : do something with your evidence, Max
2024-01-22
Gene Laratonda
DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR EVIDENCE MAX.
x156 Maxwell C. Bridges : the ear full of corn grains
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, The motto of the Christian Science Monitor was: "First the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." This was evident in their reporting since the newspapers inception in the early 1900's when yellow journalism was rampant and everywhere. Their reporting showed the stages leading up to world events which didn't happen on a lark.
You wrote: "DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR EVIDENCE MAX."
Your emphatic reply seems to imply that I'm not doing anything with my evidence. Or that I am personally responsible for taking such evidence to the next level.
FTR, the first thing I did (the blade) with "my evidence" of FGNW was to collect it together from all sorts of sources and to create a cohesive whole theory.
The second thing I did (the ear) was to shop it around the internet [on my own, so mostly Facebook, Mr. McKee's forums] and try to initiate rational discussion that would either debunk it or vet it. I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this topic.
My surprise in the effort shouldn't have been. Specifically, if an official source proclaims "yes" or "no", both responses can be appealed but the issue somehow is validated in terms of being a real thing requiring a response, even if wrong. Therefore, real power is in NOT deciding "yes" or "no", in keeping it in limbo, in running out the clock. This was my surprise, that real power was exerted against my premise, where my premise was neither debunked nor vetted, at the expense of the integrity of others in a spectacular fashion. The "blackhole treatment" -- no acknowledgment whatsoever of individual pieces of evidence -- became more and more obvious at top-levels of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The third thing I'm doing (the full corn in the ear) is to get this to the (9/11) public via the 9/11 influencers and gate-keepers. Like Mr. McKee. Like AE9/11Truth's new leadership. Maybe even like you.
It is beyond the scope of my abilities to take the ear full of corn grains and cook it for mass consumption. Corn, corn syrup, and corn by-products have many uses.
But just like corn can literally contribute to fueling your car and your belly, the full FGNW can literally nuclear-energize your 9/11 grand-jury efforts and give you clarity. The grand jury is going to need specifics. You can't just tell them: "Controlled demolition destroyed the WTC, but we don't know what form that was because the infiltrated leadership of our truth movement slow-walked and distracted with limited hang-out and "blackholed" valid discussion.
Nope. You get to stand on my shoulders, leverage my research and efforts, and cook for the grand juries the grains from the full ears of my premise in a manner that they can digest.
//
x158 Gene Laratonda : verbose way of saying you've done nothing
2024-01-22
Gene Laratonda
That's quite a verbose way of saying you've done nothing with your evidence. Please expound.
x160 Maxwell C. Bridges : agent-stilted way of saying you've not read my work
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, That's a quite a twitter-length, bot-ish, agent-stilted way of saying you've not read my FGNW work.
Pretty damning given that you made comments under a previous evolution of my FGNW premise but to nothing really specific within it, and that you ran away rather than defend your comments from the rebuttals made.
Here's a scenario. Whereas we can probably agree about lots of 9/11 attack-angles for the grand jury, but once a vector is fixed and momentum headed that way, they might throw you a curve and ask "how" questions. "You've proven to us in the Grand Jury via Newtonian physics that gravity alone didn't destroy the WTC complex and that energy had to be added. How?" Because you tend to "appeal to authority", you might reference the disinfo efforts into the nano-thermite premise. And lo and behold, your opposition goes to my work and lists verbatim everything that I've researched and collected as "a full grain of corn within my ear" that fully debunks nano-thermite as a disinfo limited hang-out. Your case will be lost.
If you want to win your grand jury cases, you have to be prepared with the full truth, the explanation that addresses the biggest swath of evidence.
It is never too early to thank me for "the full corn in the ear" that my meager efforts offer, the FGNW premise that nuclear-energizes all 9/11 attack-angles.
//
x162 Adam Ruff : function is to flood the comment section
2024-01-22
Adam Ruff
Remember Craig, Maxwell's function here is to flood the comment section with his disinformation.
x164 Maxwell C. Bridges : five comments is considered flooding
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
When the total comment count was 43, Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: "Remember Craig, Maxwell's function here is to flood the comment section with his disinformation."
The stats on the participants with more than one comment tells a different story:
- Gene Laratonda had 19.
- Craig McKee had 11.
- Adam Ruff had 6.
- Maxwell Bridges had only 5. Although this very comment increments that tally to 6 to tie with Adam Ruff.
So, how is it that five (5) comments is considered "flooding the comment section" when those stats are significantly lower than Mr. McKee's and Mr. Laratonda's?
So if Mr. Ruff is going to have Mr. McKee recollect anything from our past, let it be that Mr. Ruff is prone to boastful hyperbole verging on blatant lies that any latter-day lurker reader who can count can see.
Or is Mr. Ruff complaining about the length of my articulate, well-reasoned, and substantiated comments and want them twitter-length so they don't hurt "his widdle bwain" and don't invoke algorithms to hide things under "Expand full comment" link breaks? Is he saying that he'd prefer each of my contributions divided into many tweets so that the resulting comment count would indeed flood the forum and finally make his accusations correct and not the lies they are today?
Moreover, if Mr. Ruff makes a claim, he needs to defend the claim. Else it gets called out as hypnotic suggestion and lies.
- Mr. Ruff said my "function is to flood the comment section." Please provide a tally of all of Mr. McKee's (new) Truth & Shadows articles, Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors postings, and McKee postings to his FB wall and various groups; and then point out the statistics (a) where I participated and (b) where my participation flooded the comment section. FTR, if any of Mr. McKee's venues / postings have zero comments from me, then a "function" wasn't in play.
- Mr. Ruff seems to imply that my lengthy comments are "disinformation" without a lick of proof, which is in complete violation to many instances of him plopping down "rules for discussion" including what he spoke about in last month's presentation to McKee's panel.
Of course Mr. Ruff just pawned himself.
Here below the "Expand full comment" fold, allow me to summarize Mr. Adam Ruff's track record.
- Mr. Ruff is prone to popping-squats on books and articles [e.g., Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre Gsponer, my blog] (a) that he had not read and (b) that he brags about not ever reading.
- Mr. Ruff bragged about having wonderous debunking text on Dr. Judy Wood's work and on nuclear speculation. When cornered to defend his boasting, (a) no URLs were provided, (b) no quotations from his wonderful composition were given, and (c) nothing remembered from the debunking could be freshly authored.
- Mr. Ruff does a lot of "appealing to authority," particularly if they have PhDs. Supposedly, their assessment of a given work is sufficient to become his assessment, and no amount of pointing out weaknesses and errors in such analysis will ever get him to admit to error.
Where is this headed?
I am at a point in life where I can afford to be a bit more public and give actual VOICE to the latest evolution of my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse. I hope to present it to Mr. McKee's 9/11 panel.
I encourage Mr. Ruff to attend, because he will learn some things that might get him to change his mind. That is his one pass: his attendance.
Just setting expectations. Mr. Ruff's "one" pass to allow him to attend the panel is just my super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) overriding my rational and logical self when Mr. Ruff's track record has given plenty of reasons not to trust Mr. Ruff [will be open-minded and objective.]
Mr. Ruff wrote 2014-04-12: "The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again."
My response back then: "Fine. Because Mr. Ruff is out, because Mr. Ruff won't read my comments anyway, and because Mr. Ruff won't read the material referenced [as proven with books from Dr. Wood and Kevin Ryan], it means that Mr. Ruff forfeits the right to even publicly utter 'the nuke theory is a load of crap.' Most likely, his sources for such erroneous beliefs have already had their errors and omissions exposed by me in my various works that Mr. Ruff can't be bothered to read."
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
//
x166 Adam Ruff : troll ridiculous mini nuke theory
2024-01-24
Adam Ruff
My reply will be very short. You constantly troll Craig's blogs by posting your ridiculous mini nuke theory in an attempt to hijack the discussion away from the subject of Craig's articles. That is disruption behavior, troll behavior, and it is also an attempt to poison the well with disinformation. I will not be speaking to you any further BTW. You are not a truther, quite the opposite.
x168 Maxwell C. Bridges : even a very short reply dings his integrity
2024-01-25
Maxwell C. Bridges
All of Mr. Ruff's replies are short, because he isn't a deep thinker and doesn't take time to compose his words. However, even a very short reply dings his integrity and proves he can't keep his own promises, such as [2024-01-14]: "I will not be reading any response you give nor do I want to discuss anything with you."
This comment addresses Mr. Ruff's statements out-of-sequence.
Mr. Ruff claims [2024-01-24]: "[Maxwell C. Bridges is] not a truther, quite the opposite."
Mr. Ruff's definitions of truther:
[2015-10-05] "A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one."
[2015-10-29] "A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do."
What part of me writing up my 9/11 FGNW thesis and shopping it around 9/11 Truth groups precisely for the purpose of having its weaknesses exposed and getting it debunked (if possible) fits into the category of "not being a real truther?"
[2015-10-05] Mr. Ruff: "To me the fact that the 'team' refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part."
[2024-01-24] Mr. Ruff: "I will not be speaking to you any further BTW."
According to his own definition, this "indicates deception" on Mr. Ruff's part. Doubly so when we point out our conversations have not been oral, but written.
Mr. Ruff has nothing to substantiate or defend his claims of me "not being a truther." It falls into the category of "hypnotic suggestion" and backfires in his face of Mr. Ruff "not being a truther."
Mr. Ruff wrote: "You constantly troll Craig's blogs by posting your ridiculous mini nuke theory in an attempt to hijack the discussion away from the subject of Craig's articles."
- The adverb "constantly" is wrong. "Frequently" or "often" might be more accurate.
- The verb "troll" is wrong. I "participate." I don't spam. I don't post "shoot-from-the-hip" twitter-length ego-based responses. Most important of all, I am sincere.
- The phrase "ridiculous mini nuke theory" is wrong. Aside from being a mischaracterization of the FGNW technology, it is the direct frivilous outcome of someone who brags about not reading it, never mind understanding it.
- The phrase "hijack the discussion" is wrong. My top-level comments have all been on topic, which of late has been about the cabal. "In for a penny, in for pound." Their deceit at the Pentagon runs parallel to their deceit in the WTC destruction analysis. If Mr. Ruff had read the comments, he would know this.
Taking Mr. Ruff's words and aiming them back at him.
Mr. Ruff constantly troll Mr. McKee's blogs to take pot-shots at me personally, at my articulate (if verbose) style, and at my thesis, while out of the other side of his mouth brags about not reading my efforts, hypnotically encourages others not to read them, and promises not to engage further. Mr. Ruff's own words: "That is disruption behavior, troll behavior, and it is also an attempt to poison the well with disinformation."
If I'm invited to give a presentation on my 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons, I sincerely hope that Mr. Ruff attends (with an open-mind) so that he can learn something. However, in order to help him keep his promise, he'll probably be mussled/muted.
//
x170 Maxwell C. Bridges : revealing my Bruce Wayne
2024-01-24
Maxwell C. Bridges to Craig McKee,
If it is the last Wednesday (of jan or feb), it fits my schedule.
Behind the scenes, I'd be willing to make the sacrifice of revealing my Bruce Wayne to, say, Cheryl Curtiss and possibly other select panel members. [Adam Ruff would be excluded; what an ass!]
My Bruce Wayne revealed to the world (before it's time at either my death or retirement) would do very little to support my thesis. It'd reveal an already known fact that I'm not a nuclear physicists, but I am a vetted member of AE911Truth and thereby have standing & education to criticize its work. Most of what you'd need my Bruce Wayne for is already available: I can be contacted; I have web presence; I stand behind my words; I'm not going anywhere.
My Bruce Wayne revealed to the world would actually hurt my thesis, because it would enable others [like Adam Ruff] to hurt me through any number of cyber-sleuthing tactics that impacts, say, my employement or my wife's, or my family and family name. Such injuries, by design, would put a damper on my efforts. It opens the door to all sorts of ad hominem -- "Oh, so your GPA in engineering school was a paltry 2.7?!! You didn't study architecture or civil engineering. The towers weren't brought down by the semiconductor or software you studied." -- that are distractions from the thesis.
What makes my thesis powerful is that it comes from a sincere, educated, dedicate nobody who thoroughly read the reports, researched things, did his homework, discovered the errors, consolidated evidence, and made his findings available. Findings and conclusions that should already have been made by, say, AE911Truth and others.
Once the seed is planted, it really is quite obvious, and quite infuriating when considering those who otherwise volunteered or were charged with discovering such Truth. [It'll nuclear-energize your Pentagon hobby-horse.]
Actually, I give myself too much credit. All of the pieces in my FGNW puzzle came from others. My star-seed purpose was simply to be OCD and rescue & collect them into a cohesive thesis. The pieces have already been "vetted" in terms of being something valid to consider, making it quite damning to others who promptly ignored them or skewed them.
//
++++++++++++++
x172 Craig McKee : more than 30 deleted comments
2024-01-24
https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/erasing-ae911truth-international/comment/48211276
Craig McKee
EDITOR'S NOTE: For those who might be wondering why there are more than 30 deleted comments under this article, I will tell you that this is because Gene Laratonda wrote a litany of abusive and insulting comments and later thought better of it. This isn't the first time he has done such a thing (previously on Facebook). It is self-serving for Laratonda to reach for a virtue-signallying mea culpa and to gut this comment stream after he initially polluted it.
Just so the record show it, he posted a 6,000-word screed written by David Slesinger on a site he created called Is Kelly David a Police Agent. This text was toxic and false to start with, so it is fitting that Laratonda would share it here in reaction to an article about how Kelly David was attacked and lied about by Ted Walter so that Walter could get rid of her and get her job. I mean, if Walter went after David, why should Laratonda balance that by also going after her? Right?
Why did Laratonda change his mind and apologize, before removing all his comments? Because he got caught in a monstrous lie: he had written in an email a month ago that he knew Slesinger's attack piece was "garbage." So he posted it KNOWING it was a lie. I hit him with this fact on this thread over and over again. He finally realized that I was not going to let him get away with his deceitful act. It was going to follow him. So he cut his losses, "apologized," and deleted the evidence. Fortunately, I have copies of every word (all comments appear in my inbox).
No, this doesn't end here, because he said a lot more that reveal his true character and his true agenda. His pollution of this discussion was only magnified by his girlfriend, Sandra Jelmi, in a series of disgusting posts of her own. By the way both of them proved the point of my article by attacking AE911Truth. Stay tuned.
x174 Maxwell C. Bridges : actions of Mr. Gene Laratonda
2024-01-24
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, the actions of Mr. Gene Laratonda are exactly why I tend to save off-line, not just the words I'm writing, but the words of those I am responding to. It helps with accurate quotations, but also in situations like this.
It would have been worse had it been on Facebook, because there if you have the top-level comment, its removal trashes all threads underneath it.
My first conversation on FB with Mr. Laratonda about neu nookiedoo ended up disappearing in such a manner. He did go to my blog to leave a canned rebuttal. I addressed all six points of his rebuttal on my blog, and also sent him an email letting him know, "hey, I've addressed your issues and advanced the conversation; here is its new state."
Silence.
Post-edit: Because Mr. Adam Ruff didn't seem to know what "spamming", "forum-sliding", and "forum-flooding" were, the reply-to-his-own-comment actions from Mr. Laratonda that created a nested series of comments was on its face-value not any of those, because each comment had unique new information as part of a much longer work that necessitated being broken up by character limitations in substack.
The nesting levels of substack levels has me rethinking the cordial way to submit replies that are more comprehensive (and maybe more links). In Facebook, you'd make one and only one top-level comment that was replied to multiple times by you with 2nd level comments that break your work into chunks according to FB character and URL limitations. This then allows a third level of comments (threads) for others to discuss things from each 2nd level comment. The way FB collapses things up into "see more..." groups, such efforts would not be spamming.
In substack multi-levels, the technique of "replying-to-self" into multi-levels works well for keeping your words together. However, any replies to specifics in a given chunk (x-th level comment) had better quote liberally from that chunk, because lurker readers will otherwise not be able to follow the discussion, worse is if each chunk/level inspires discussion.
When it became known to the reading audience through the comments that (a) the information posted in sequence had many errors and (b) the poster knew about the errors and posted it anyway without identifying the errors to the readers, then negative motivations and intentions are presumed to be at play, turning the scholarly posting effort into spam. [Mr. Ruff, take note and refrain from accusing others of such willy-nilly.]
Thank goodness substack leaves a placeholder for comments anchoring threads that get deleted by the author (or admin). Other older venues had a real publication issue with orphaned comments. Facebook can't handle it at all, so when you delete a comment at (n) level is deleted, all orphaned children (n+1) get deleted. [Deleted from public view. FB at your trial will be able to retrieve every single comment you ever made.]
The deletion of your own comments is a powerful tool for good and evil. Gets foiled when other participants in the discussion include quotations that they are responding to. The wannabe-deleter-of-words loses control of those words in the sense, if it is an accurate quotation with proper attribution given and its accuracy isn't disputed in the discussion, then the deleter-of-words cannot later deny association despite their purging actions.
Post-edit #2: I just saw the spamming that Ms. 9/11 Revisionist did for her Woodsian-DEW. Spamming because it was copied and therefore cannot possibly be relevant to every thread she posted it in.
//
Part 6: FGNW Discussions with Craig McKee
x176 Maxwell C. Bridges : willing to finally step out from the ethernet shadows and literally give voice to my pseudonym
2024-01-22
Dear Mr. McKee,
You've known me for years. Not a bot. My legacy disproves any agency
affiliation; no agent would want their words collected, re-purposed,
and published as a whole and kept hanging around the internet.
As you may recall, just before I came across your blog and started
participating, I had gone through a doxing of my personhood on another
forum (alter.net). Made me very cautious, even forced my pseudonym
(Maxwell C. Bridges) to use a second-level online persona (Senor El
Once) while participating on your T&S. Made me also more appreciative
of your more public activities that I could not do, owing to the age
of my children and my and my wife's careers.
So it should say a lot that today -- more than a dozen years later --
I'm willing to finally step out from the ethernet shadows and
literally give voice to my pseudonym by presenting (and defending) my
evolved and substantiated thesis to your 9/11 panel. It is time.
I assume you remember my Bruce Wayne. I'd be happy to remind you (and
only you) if it gives you improved warm-fuzzy-feelings of my realness.
Wonders of technology, I'd even do a video chat with you (and only
you) to my Bruce Wayne's very own smart phone in preparation and
negotiation for my presentation to your 9/11 panel.
However, my children are still teenagers. My wife has an important
career that is technically with the government. I could retire now,
but 2029 is the target.
Point is, publicly in your online 9/11 panel, I'll give VOICE to my
pseudonym. I prefer than I not be on camera, and that my "Heisenberg /
Walter White". I'll share my computer screen, which will have browser
tabs to my blog, particularly the last FGNW article.
My presentation will essentially be the context of that FGNW article,
but not in that order. It seems to me I may have to deviate from the
onset from its organization in order to expose the deceit of earlier
9/11 Truthers (and cabal members) who steered considerations away from
nuclear topics. Just on the nuclear front, I need to nuclear blast the
foundations on which they rest so that a void is created for neu
nookiedoo to step into.
I encourage Mr. Adam Ruff (and Adam Syed) to attend. However,
technically Mr. Ruff's previous actions have forfeited him the right
to speak on my premise. He gets one pass, which is his ability to
attend and participate. At the first sign of insincerity (or other
negative traits) on his part, I will not hesitate to "nuclear blast"
his reputation with URLs and a brief explanation to the panel. [He's
proud of giving assessments of books and reports that he admits he
hasn't read and won't ever read: Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre
Gsponer, my stuff.]
Stated another way, I sincerely WANT Mr. Ruff to attend. He'll learn
something and have an "ah-ha moment", and maybe will have the courage
to apologize for his previous less-than-sincere efforts and to
acknowledge publicly the viability of my thesis. That's my goal.
However, the whole purpose of my previous efforts -- to initiate a
rational discussion, to sincerely participate, to collect and save
those exchanges -- is to have them available to ADVANCE the discussion
by shutting down quickly when required future unproductive exchanges
if that's where they are headed. Mr. Ruff has that track record. Been
there, done that, learned my lessons, moving forward.
This is it.
//
x178 Maxwell C. Bridges : Nuclear-energizing your 9/11 Endeavors
2024-01-31
to: Craig McKee
Dear Mr. McKee,
I was getting myself mentally prepared to present, so your lack of
communication and then finding I'm not presenting was a little
annoying and a let-down. I forgive you.
The concern over my pseudonym is unfounded.
The concern over the figurative nuclear-fallout of my thesis is founded.
If need be with those raising pseudonym concerns (like Cheryl
Curtiss), I can defend quite eloquently its viability. Have her look
at the "About the Author" under the latest evolution of my thesis.
[Send her my way via email, but forewarn her of my verbosity.] In my
case with an extensive legacy, my pseudonym is not a hit-and-run, not
running away from my words. I defend my words and stand behind my
words up to the point where proper analysis and argumentation gets me
to change my mind [and evolve my thesis].
Given that I'm willing to reveal my Bruce Wayne to a select few
behind-the-scenes including Cheryl, I'm not a complete nobody. I
should be given the same courtesy already extended to celebrities of
movies and music who perform under stage names and prefer that they be
addressed and interviewed under the "brand name" that they've been
building. I'm just reminding you of what you already know and probably
practice, but didn't defend very well with Cheryl.
Because of the figurative nuclear fall-out concerns.
Yes, you did say that a presentation slot could be January or
February, and that you didn't want to fill the slot yourself so soon
after your last endeavors. Hence the miscommunication.
However, a slot is insufficient. My hobby-horse will need the full
program (half for the presentation and half for the inspired
discussion), making February probably better. Word needs to be put out
in advance to the other regular panelists so that they come prepared
by having read my thesis. All (e.g., Adam Ruff) who in later
discussion name my premise as anything other than "FGNW",
"Fourth-gen", or "exotic nuclear weapons" [such as "milli-nukes",
"mini-nukes," "nukes", etc.] will be taken to task for that being
evidence of them not having read the thesis and for their
disinformation attempts. We'll have to insist on proper naming,
because it is precisely with improper naming that the cabal and others
have gotten away with misleading their audiences.
Here's a recommendation for you.
How about just you and I have a recorded Zoom where we discuss my
thesis? A pre-panel meeting.
Interview me.
Consider it preparation and you getting the warm-fuzzies for my bigger
presentation to your panel. I'm expecting that this interview could
eventually be public, but probably more as a record for the latter-day
lurker-curious sometime after the big presentation to the panel is
made public. Could be initial source for articles you pen.
To use some Masonic terms already in general usage, you and I need to
be on the level and square with one another.
I always reveal too much about myself when communicating with you.
YOU are, and have been, my number one Truther influencer to convince
(or not) of my thesis.
YOU are the place where my nuclear seeds can have the most fertile
soil and watering for growth (assuming validated).
I sound like an agent admitting that and my desire for you to build
the corral for nookiedoo. However, downplaying it as a "corral" also
isn't true, because she's got the nuclear energy to consume so much
more. Certainly, I can and do defend my work in your internet realms.
But this is much bigger than that and will put burdens and tests on
YOU. ["If you're not getting flak, you're not over the target."]
Hence, time for us to pow-wow, on camera, and map a way forward.
As if I haven't already been begging you for years to let my written
words convince you of my thesis, now I'm suggesting to allow me to
VERBALLY and VIDEO-OF-MY-FACE convince you, albeit with a shared
screen to my thesis. Demonstrates the significance of me stepping out
into the public more to advance my niche of 9/11 Truth. A major
milestone. (And my cherry could be all yours, Mr. McKee, *batting
eyelashes*.)
Being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) aren't my only
super-powers. My sincerity and open-mindedness even to flaws in my
premise pack a huge wallop. Mr. Ruff calls me OCD. Maybe "horder
super-power" is closer to the truth, because I've data-mined all sorts
of 9/11 sources for the nuggets of truth that build my thesis; those
nuggets aren't in dispute, which is an issue for the naysayers. And
I've horded my words and those of my discussion opponents, creating
the weapon known as "online legacy" which further underscores my
sincerity and is a bane on my detractors. I've been consistent and
persistent.
I told Mr. Davenport that I was star-seed. (You are, too.) Neu
nookiedoo is my grand purpose (outside of my Bruce Wayne small-life
duties.)
You have already embarked upon a path of identifying disingenuous
leaders/influencers in the Truth Movement with your cabal work and all
of that insider politics and back-stabbing. You've hinted at a new
(hit) piece on Gene and Sandra. Thankfully I can plead ignorance to
the behind-the-scenes politics and backstabbing, and am rubber-neck
enthralled by the dirty laundry that was aired on substack. But to the
degree that you go there, mounting nookiedoo will nuclear energize
your efforts in the battle (for Truth and accountability).
A one-on-one with me will either give you the warm-fuzzies, or the
heebie-jeebies, or both. Make me a known commodity in the small before
allowing me (and nookiedoo) to prance in the large into your panel
(warm-fuzzies).
The heebie-jeebies comes when the breadth of the figurative nuclear
fallout is considered. For example, Richard Gage isn't going to like
it, isn't going to like me pointing out the blatant FAQ fraud of
AE911truth under his leadership, nor is anyone from the cabal...
Because I earnestly approached them to the best of my humble abilities
to LEGITIMATELY address the obvious nuclear involvement. Adam Ruff,
among others, isn't going to like it, because it undermines his
campaign to label it "disinformation" and dings his integrity,
objectivity, and credibility unless he can admit where he was wrong,
apologize, and sing a different tune (to water the seeds).
Allow me to underscore. Me being willing to give public VOICE to my
thesis is a BIG deal. To me.
You aren't seeing how BIG a deal it will be for you... Even if I don't
convince you and you go full-bore anti-nuke. LEGITIMATELY vetting or
debunking 9/11 nuclear involvement is a major void (by design) in the
9/11 discourse that you would have the honor of filling. Whether you
(figuratively) "step on me or on my shoulders," you're the one to
bring this to the public's attention and will nuclear energize your
cause.
*snap of the fingers*
And with that, I've plopped down the best hypnotic suggestion from my
book of free-masonic magic spells.
Looking forward to our one-on-one video conference! I'm on MST and am
surprisingly available except lodge nights... and this weekend when I
might be skiing.
All the best, Mr. McKee
// mcb
Part 7: FGNW Discussions with Boston 9/11 Truth, Susan Serpa, Alfred Magaletta
x180 Susan Serpa : missed your link in the chat
2024-01-28
from: Susan Serpa
to: Maxwell Bridges,
Alfred Magaletta
date: Jan 28, 2024, 5:09 PM
subject: Boston 9/11 Truth
Hi Max,
I missed your link in the chat, so Can you please send it here?
Also, Can you outline what you would be addressing as a guest speaker?
Thanks!
Susan
x182 Maxwell C. Bridges : cognitive dissonance is alive and even stronger in 9/11 Truthers
2024-01-28
to: Susan Serpa
cc: Alfred Magaletta
date: Jan 28, 2024, 7:08 PM
subject: Re: Boston 9/11 Truth
Dear Ms. Serpa and Mr. Magaletta,
Here is the link to my blog article that will form the basis of my talk.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
Here is a link to a version of my theory that was two evolutions in the past.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
The reason that the second link is relevant is because I've learned
that cognitive dissonance is alive and even stronger in 9/11 Truthers
than it is with non-Truthers. Truthers kid themselves that they are
completely open-minded which is what got them to explore 9/11
rabbit-holes in the first place to substantiate a belief that the
Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) was grossly incomplete and wrong.
However, the 9/11 Truth Movement was infiltrated, which any
open-minded thinker and student of history would have suspected before
any organized group (like AE9/11Truth) appeared. Precisely my 9/11
thesis is what they were covering for and distracting from. Because
those infiltrators were in cases PhD's or science literate, they were
given a pass in a very "appeal to authority" way.
At any rate, the second link slaughters the nano-thermite sacred cow.
Necessary to create a void in the 9/11 consensus explanation in order
for room to be created in open-minds for the actual,
bottom-of-the-rabbit-hole truth. Fun fact, this is precisely what Dr.
Steven Jones did, nuclear scientists. He first duped the weaker in
science with his repudiation of "all nuclear weapons" while framing
them wrong, not mentioning neutron devices, and not mentioning the
offspring from neutron devices. Lots of issues with what he accepted
unquestioned and unchallenged. After creating an obvious void where
valid nuclear speculation should have been, he filled it with the
nano-thermite limited hang-out that they don't even speculate how it
could account for all of the evidence. [Major omission from his
nuclear research to repudiate "all forms of nuclear devices" was the
research of Dr. Andre Gsponer.]
Thus, my presentation may have to legitimately skewer the works of
"pillars of the 9/11 truth community" for their purposeful
foot-dragging and not-seeking-truth actions. The FAQ's from
AE9/11Truth are no exception.
By the way, lots of Easter Eggs (and real meat) of my presentation are
buried in the reference notes. Also, if you want to see my CV, follow
the links for "about the author" on the first link.
Both links take you to my blog, where you'll see that I have been
around a long time on the 9/11 Truth front. I've ridden my hobby-horse
into battle many times, and it has survived and grown stronger. I've
had exchanges with most of "the cabal" and others (David Chandler,
Wayne Coste, Adam Ruff, and even Gene Laratonda), and it did not go
well for them in trying to debunk my thesis. The consistent blackhole
treatment by anyone with 9/11 Truther influence is a clue. [Gene
deleted his FB comment that started us in conversation. He did a
hit-and-run with copy-and-paste to one of my blog articles; his six
points were refuted and he was informed through multiple channels (FB,
email) of this.
You'll find out in my CV, that "Maxwell C. Bridges" is my online
batman that I have consistently used for years. My Bruce Wayne can be
discovered; I'm sure the government knows the GPS coordinates to my
personhood for a missile strike. My Bruce Wayne is a vetted member of
AE9/11Truth, which gives me both standing and the science-chops to
criticize it for his blatant errors. Behind-the-scenes, I could tell
you my Bruce Wayne, but it neither adds nor subtracts from the thesis.
I don't want it exposed for valid reasons, and attempts to dox me or
comments headed that direction will do a karmic number on the doxer's
integrity. With time, some of those reasons have become less pressing
but still persist, but I can now give VOICE to my thesis with my
consistent batman alias.
BTW, I submitted my work to IC911Justice; silence. It was given to
Richard Gage through AE9/11Truth and comments to his substack -- that
he then removed. Adam Ruff brags about not reading my comments, let
alone my works, and pwned himself royally in discussion. It surprises
me that Craig McKee is still on the fence, but I have asked to present
to his 9/11 Panel (no news yet).
The real problem with my valid 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons theory
is that it can still have MASSIVE figurative nuclear fallout on
government leaders, institutions, agencies, corporate media, and
various "celebrities" in the 9/11 Truth Movement who should have known
better, were told better, were given opportunities to debunk (or vet)
my thesis legitimately, and ended up pwning their own integrity.
I write better than I publicly speak.
// mcb
x184 Susan Serpa : next available slot we have for guest speaker
2024-02-14
from: Susan Serpa
to: Maxwell Bridges
cc: Alfred Magaletta
date: Feb 14, 2024, 1:28 PM
subject: Re: Boston 9/11 Truth
Hi Maxwell,
The next available slot we have for guest speaker is March 21st. Does that work for you?
x186 Maxwell C. Bridges : out on a limb by giving voice
2024-02-14
to: Susan Serpa
cc: Alfred Magaletta
date: Feb 14, 2024, 3:34 PM
subject: Re: Boston 9/11 Truth
Dear Ms. Serpa,
I'm a bit confused about Thursday, March 21 at ? o'clock (EST) as
being the next available slot for a guest speaker. Don't take this to
mean that I can't be made available.
Basis for my confusion is the 911warroom meeting on Sundays at 5 pm
EST, as far as I know. What is special about that Thursday in March?
And to whom would I be giving my presentation? How big is the
audience? How long is my slot? Does that include Q&A? What is the
forum (or group)? Will my audience be prepared with my case
beforehand, allowing them to ask learned questions? Or should I assume
everyone is hearing it for the first time? Are there going to be any
9/11 celebrities in the audience [from ae911truth, ic911, etc.]?
Would I be allowed to invite a few others? Specifically, McKee and the
two (2) Adam's (Ruff, Syed). Why? They've known me for years but
strangely I haven't been able to get them to take my premise
seriously, let alone to a point where we could discuss "convince me,
or let me convince you." Ruff has been a huge blow-heart critic over
the years, boasting about what he doesn't read. Having him sit and
absorb my presentation would be healing.
So if I'm going to go out on a limb by giving voice to convince a
bunch of 9/11 Truthers of my FGNW exotic nuclear weapons theory -- in
for a penny, in for a pound -- let me do it once and get all the 9/11
influencers at once. Or not.
What am I to expect on this Thursday?
// mcb
x188 Susan Serpa : speakers lined up
2024-02-14
from: Susan Serpa
to: Maxwell Bridges
date: Feb 14, 2024, 6:53 PM
subject: Re: Boston 9/11 Truth
Boston 9/11 Truth meets every other Thursday at 6:30 pm eastern. But we already have speakers lined up for the next two meetings, so the next available is in March. We have an email list of about 270 and generally speaking we have about a dozen who join us on the zoom. Speakers usually take 40 minutes including Q& A. I can’t say if any 9/11 “celebrities” will join us. Some are on the invite-list, however;!so you never know. Invite whomever you like.
x190 Maxwell C. Bridges : URL to the regular (Zoom) Thursday meetings?
2024-02-15
Dear Ms. Serpa,
I assume the link to Boston 9/11 Truth is
https://www.boston911truth.org
What is the URL to the regular (Zoom) Thursday meetings?
// mcb
x192 Susan Serpa : Boston 9/11 Truth Zoom Meeting
2024-02-15
from: Susan Serpa
to: Alfred Magaletta
Maxwell Bridges
date: Feb 15, 2024, 1:39 PM
subject: Re: Boston 9/11 Truth
Here you go:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88524175345
Meeting ID: 885 2417 5345
x194 Maxwell C. Bridges : invited to the meetings
2024-02-15
to: Susan Serpa
cc: Alfred Magaletta
date: Feb 15, 2024, 4:39 PM
Dear Ms. Serpa,
Thank you.
Does this link work for other meetings? Am I invited to the meetings
between now and my presentation?
I assume "yes", and no need to reply if that is the case.
// mcb
x196 Susan Serpa : dates of the meetings
2024-02-16
Susan Serpa
Fri, Feb 16, 3:29 AM
to me, Alfred
Sure. Here are the dates of the meetings:
Feb 22, 2024 06:30 PM with Richard Krushnic
Mar 7, 2024 06:30 PM with Dan Hanley
Mar 21, 2024 06:30 PM with Maxwell
Apr 4, 2024 06:30 PM
Apr 18, 2024 06:30 PM
May 2, 2024 06:30 PM
May 16, 2024 06:30 PM
May 30, 2024 06:30 PM
Jun 13, 2024 06:30 PM
Jun 27, 2024 06:30 PM
Jul 11, 2024 06:30 PM
Jul 25, 2024 06:30 PM
Aug 8, 2024 06:30 PM
Aug 22, 2024 06:30 PM
Sep 5, 2024 06:30 PM
Sep 19, 2024 06:30 PM
Oct 3, 2024 06:30 PM
Oct 17, 2024 06:30 PM
x198 Maxwell C. Bridges : to the webmaster of boston911truth.org
2024-02-20
Tue, Feb 20, 9:19 AM
to Susan, Alfred
Dear Ms. Serpa and Mr. Magaletta,
Could you please pass the following to the webmaster of boston911truth.org?
- Under "Further Links" in the right-hand menus, the "Contact" item is broken.
- In the main menu, there is an "Alternative Theories" drop-down that
today has one item pointing to Dr. Judy Wood. Could you please add a
second item title: "9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons"?
- Please make a posting titled "9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons"
whose content [including needed Javascript for proper navigation] is
provided in the attached HTML file.
Fear not. (a) Your mail system has scanned it for viruses. After you
save locally, (b) you can open with any text editor in search of
badness, such as references to external Javascript files which there
are none. (c) You can open safely with Word, but Javascript is
de-activated and hidden content exposed. (d) You can safely open in
your browser to see how it is supposed to work with the Javascript on
the reference notes.
To suit your website, you can re-define colors and margins provided in
the embedded CSS.
BTW, I have no problems on blogspot with embedded Javascript in my
form entry for a posting. Wordpress and Substack, on the other hand,
do not like embedded Javascript [as in, if they aren't auto-stripped
from a posting in the database, they are at publication.] If your
website doesn't allow the Javascript to work from a posting, no
problem except you'll want to search and replace in the HTML file so
that reference notes are default shown and not default hidden.
search: style="display: none;"
replace with: style="display: block;"
Thank you,
// mcb
202310_mcb_fgnw_text_07.htm
x200 Susan Serpa : 9/11 Synthesis is no longer on the B9/11T website
2024-02-22
from: Susan Serpa
to: Alfred Magaletta
Maxwell Bridges
Lawrence Fine
date: Feb 22, 2024, 9:54 AM
subject: Re: Boston 9/11 Truth
Al,
I noticed that 9/11 Synthesis is no longer on the B9/11T website. It used to be under Alternative Theories. So, it seems it was actively taken down. I'm not sure how long ago that happened. What were the circumstances of taking it down? Can we get it back up, please? https://lorenzonine.wixsite.com/nineelevensynthesis/ground-zero-building-4-deta And why is just the Judy Woods theory under Alternative theories?
- Susan
2024-03-11
Susan Serpa
Mon, Mar 11, 8:17 AM
to me
Hi Maxwell,
Can you send me your bio for your presentation on March 21st, please?
x204 Maxwell C. Bridges : my bio
2024-03-11
Bruecke
Mon, Mar 11, 4:01 PM
to Susan
Dear Ms. Serpa,
Here's my bio:
Maxwell C. Bridges
Maxwell C. Bridges is an online Batman (or pseudonym).
Maxwell C. Bridges has a two (2) decades long online legacy
(http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com and website returning soon) that
documents his sincere search for 9/11 Truth and evolution in
understanding.
Maxwell C. Bridges is a mild-mannered, middle-class, (now)
middle-aged, short, bald, white, male [married with two (2) teenagers,
one (1) dog, and five (5) chickens, which itself is reason enough to
use a pen-name] who is counting down on one hand the years until
retirement and is also an active Free Mason.
Free Masonry's reverence for Truth as "a divine attribute and the
foundation of every virtue" aligns with Truth as one of the seven (7)
synonyms for God as taught in Christian Science. Maxwell C. Bridges is
a religious fanatic: he's fanatical about Truth.
CV/Resume
- Fourteen (14) tech employers since high school two (2) decades back
into last century
- Three (3) degrees from institutions of higher education: BA In a
foreign language; BS in an engineering discipline; MS in a
multi-disciplinary tech field
- Does ~not~ have: doctorate's degree; degree in (nuclear) physics;
security clearance; any form of access to any classified materials.
- Did have:
- Library card at local institution of higher education; access to
online public repositories.
- Four (4) semesters of college physics for engineers.
- One (1) semester group study on nuclear weapons.
- Super-powers: Naïve and trusting (until given reasons not to be);
sincere; objective; question authority; persistent; articulate;
rational
Claim to Fame
- Spelunked into 9/11 Rabbit-Holes for Easter Eggs and nuggets of truth
- (Dis)trusted and tried to verify (or not).
- Saved his work: "Vanity Blog;" Legacy https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
- Evolved his 9/11 understanding.
- Conspiracy Theory alignment at Birth: Born eleventh (11) day of
eleventh (11) month. Eleven (11) days later, President JFK
assassinated. Nine-Eleven (11) klaxon call for this star seed: "Feed
my sheep."
// mcb
x206 Maxwell C. Bridges : Maxwell Bridges FGNW Presentation
2024-03-25
Susan Serpa
Mon, Mar 25, 7:00 AM
to Susan, bcc: me
See his attached pdf presentation, and YouTube from last Thursday below. (Don't forget to like and subscribe to our channel).
https://youtu.be/gN_27Xtq19o
x208 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thank you for allowing me to give my presentation
2024-03-27
Wed, Mar 27, 8:30 AM
to Susan
Dear Ms. Serpa,
Thank you again for allowing me to give my presentation, recording it,
and posting it.
// mcb
x210 Susan Serpa : it went very well
2024-03-27
Susan Serpa
Wed, Mar 27, 8:33 AM
to Alfred, me
You’re welcome! I think it went very well. Thank YOU for a clear, well-researched presentation!
Part 8: FGNW Discussions with Craig McKee, Pete Davenport
x212 Maxwell C. Bridges : aren't isolated efforts of deceit and steering
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, let me start off by wishing you a happy birthday. One of these days you'll have the courage to look into the WTC to see how deep the rot and poison were in AE9/11Truth's bones, practically from its inception and Dr. Steven Jones.
Their Pentagon actions aren't isolated efforts of deceit and steering.
Your next Part 2 will address the fact that these same actors -- knowing the rot at the core of AE9/11Truth -- want to destroy the lame and sick AE9/11Truth to cover their asses from the deceit they propagated.
BTW, because you've run out the clock, my hobby-horse of neu nookiedoo is now considered and assumed to be valid and true from this point going forward. And it dove-tails so nicely with the deceit the same actors pulled in other areas of 9/11.
//
x214 Pete Davenport : publish your book and we'll see what floats
2024-01-22
Pete Davenport
Maxwell C. Bridges Considered and assumed by who?
Publish your book and we'll see what floats, or gets nailed to the wall in the outhouse
Pete Davenport
Ok, that was a bit harsh
x216 Maxwell C. Bridges : a blog article on the subject
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, Given that I have been shopping around my thesis in all the right 9/11 places for literally years PRECISELY so that it could be legitimately debunked, that's what makes it valid. At best, the contrarians got me to acknowledge issues leading to EVOLUTION of that very same thesis to make it better.
At this point, I don't need to publish it into a book. The present version would be kind of thin in book form anyway.
Instead I have a blog article on the subject that can be read from computers and smart-phones. That ought to be sufficient for now.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
x218 Pete Davenport : informing the unenlightened ones
2024-01-22
Pete Davenport
Maxwell C. Bridges OK, noted
At this time in human history, I am more interested in informing the unenlightened ones that the 9/11 Official Story is total bunk, and this is the time to do so, whilst the evil ZioNISTs literally run-over victims of their NEW WAR, and lick their lips with the blood of babies - and laugh, all the while.
Your nuke theories, and I don't dismiss, whatever your theories are, are not 'zactly priority 1 on my agenda.
But I'm sure it's a good read.
x220 Maxwell C. Bridges : our own star-seed roles to play
2024-01-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, We each have our own star-seed roles to play. As long as we play to Truth, we can co-exist and enhance one another.
Case in point, my premise of 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons goes hand-in-hand with your premise of evil ZioNISTs. How so?
Unlike NT or conventional chemical based explosives which any devoloped nation on the planet has, FGNW limits the suspects to USA and Israel. Mossad had agents at the WTC: as "artists" beforehand; as filmers of the event that they had warning about; as handlers to the patsies blamed for the hijackings.
//
++++++++
x222 Maxwell C. Bridges : my star-seed path to collect evidence of 9/11 nuclear involvement
2024-01-26
Maxwell C. Bridges
In other thread under this posting, Mr. Pete Davenport raised a valid question. When I wrote that my 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapon premise is considered and assumed to be valid and true from this point going forward, it refers to anyone inside the truth movement and the general public.
My star-seed path was to collect sufficient public evidence of 9/11 nuclear involvement, wrap it into a thesis, and present & defend it to the 9/11 truthers and OCTers. The presence of my evolving nuclear thesis has been brought to the attention of those steering the movement (AE911Truth, the cabal, govt pysop division X -- actual name is classified probably) starting over a decade ago.
I have been sincere, and love the discipline of the high road. Fuck if I ain't articulate in written form. Rational. Logical. Educated. Ability to research. I joke that I embrace "bat-shit crazy" [card for later "not guilty by reason of insanity" trial], but am I?
I am just a humble and simple seeker of Truth and have a "neu nookiedoo" 9/11 hobby-horse that I would be okay in getting legitimately slaughtered in a rational discussion. Battle after battle, she survives and gets stronger.
Over the years and with slight evolution of the thesis, it was brought to the direct attention of 9/11 celebrities -- David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ted Walters, Richard Gage, AIA, etc. -- through Facebook discussions, comments posted to the various websites and substacks, and direct email. [Disclaimer: my boring blog contains the online battles that strengthened neu nookiedoo and substantiate my claims of a sincere and earnest effort simple to have legitimate 9/11 nuclear discussions.]
The silence in the responses, the growing lack of engagement.
The blackhole treatment.
Validates the thesis after all this time.
9/11 Truthers are given permission to water this seed and help it grow.
//
x224 Craig McKee : "truther cred" by jumping on the controlled demolition bandwagon
2024-02-06
Craig McKee
2024-02-06
The members of this cabal, who all gained their "truther cred" by jumping on the controlled demolition bandwagon (and by associating with AE911Truth), include people like David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ken Jenkins, Jim Hoffman, Fran Shure, Victoria Ashley, Jonathan Cole, John Wyndham, Frank Legge (now deceased), and numerous others.
For years, the group has done everything possible to influence, pressure, cajole, and strong arm AE911Truth, which is one pillar of the Truth movement that it has not been able to bring to heel.
+++++
x226 Maxwell C. Bridges : McKee's blind-spot, AE911Truth
2024-02-06
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. McKee, Not your best work. I think the tone is off and not that objective. Plus you have formatting inconsistencies when it comes to quoting from others, particularly what turns out to be a multi-paragraph quote from Sandra that absolutely has to be fixed. Get it to match the lengthy multi-paragraph blockquote later from Gene with the blockquote bar on the left so at a glance we know it is a quote. And why are single-paragraph quotes not matching the formatting for Gene's? And maybe beef-up the bullet on those multi-paragraphs that seem to be weakly formatted unordered lists, but could also be copy-paste errors.
For Mr. Adam Ruff's benefit, the above is "on-topic" without even mentioning the topic. Bwahahaha! It is important feedback about the article equivalent to pointing out typos, a professional courtesy for Mr. McKee.
Mr. McKee, referring to the topic of your piece, you wrote these sentences that are quoted here out of both context & sequence: "A couple of years ago, Chandler also said that AE is infiltrated by agents and the leadership refuses to do anything about it. ... The members of this cabal, who all gained their 'truther cred' by jumping on the controlled demolition bandwagon (and by associating with AE911Truth)... Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth is under attack."
Any astute student of history would have expected that ~any~ organized group to emerge from within the loose 9/11 Truth Movement would have its very founding be steeped in "infiltration." [Starting with Dr. Steven Jones.]
As a vetted member of AE911Truth and expecting more from its active science-literate members & leaders, I have standing to criticize AE911Truth and to be thoroughly pissed off at their gate-keeping in the one area where they supposedly earned 'truther cred': the demolition of the WTC complex.
AE911Truth deserves to be under attack. It deserves to be imploded by its built-in self-destruct mechanisms, which can be the details of its (FAQ) work leading the public to false conclusions, the character of its champions, or both. AE911Truth had so many purposeful and fundamental flaws, it was destined to be -- pun-intended specifically for Mr. Adam Ruff -- "nuked" and have no valid lasting legacy... With but one exception. AE911Truth requires a memorial and/or monument and deserves to be studied for the clever and crafty disinformation & infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Mr. McKee, your major blind-spot is that "the controlled demolition bandwagon" of AE911Truth is the ~FIRST~ area where the infiltration by agents was put into action, not the Pentagon. They accepted unquestioned and unchallenged shitty analysis by various government institutions; they slow-walked what became their own shitty analysis; they put on a siding and left in neglect to rust many valid WTC topics like WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6; they foisted up faulty, limited hang-out explanations (NT) for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7; and they would not legitimately debunk competing (disinfo) premises.
Mr. Adam Ruff has always been prone to lay down rules for discussion (that he later fails to follow). Here are a couple of relevant gems from the past, his definitions of a real & genuine truther:
[2015-10-05] "A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one."
[2015-10-29] "A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do."
From Mr. McKee's blind-spot, AE911Truth would not "debate 9/11 issues and either prove their (NT) hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one." Cases in point:
- AE911Truth's FAQ to debunk Dr. Wood's work didn't even quote from her work, wasted 40% of its word count promoting NT, and did not acknowledge any nuggets of truth (e.g., anomalous evidence) contained therein.
- AE911Truth's FAQ to debunk ~ALL~ forms of nuclear weapons was scope-limited from the onset. It framed the discussion as "nuclear blasts" and avoids mentioning other destructive forms of nuclear yield, like the derivative offspring of "neutron bombs" that release in a targeted fashion 80% of the nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons.
- AE911Truth's super-duper (emphasis on "dupe") nano-thermite doesn't explain WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, or WTC-7, and logically from a logistics & implementation standpoint doesn't explain the demolition of the towers either. NT is disinformation, and is easily debunked by Dr. Steven Jones himself, who gave us these Easter Egg clues: (a) NT needed to be mixed with something else like RDX to achieve the observed brisance of the demolition, and (b) something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT... And then through his own actions and that of AE911Truth, did not revisit his own dust samples to measure what that "something else" was.
What is common between AE911Truth, IC911, Mr. Richard Gage, Mr. David Chandler, Mr. Wayne Coste, Dr. Judy Wood, Mr. Gene Laratonda, ..., Mr. Adam Ruff, and Mr. Craig McKee?
ANSWER: They give 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons "the blackhole treatment." And maybe they are scared of facing me in (written) debate; damn, I'm good!
DISCLAIMER: Over the years, Mr. McKee has allowed hundreds of my verbose, rational, logical, substantiated comments within the forums that he controls; and such exchanges with forum participants helped improve and evolve the 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons premise. (THANK YOU, MR. MCKEE!)
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
However, Mr. McKee is still guilty of "the blackhole treatment," because:
(a) He hasn't read my premise to spot its typos as a professional courtesy (like I just afforded him above), let alone to grasp its significance and how it actually "nuclear powers-up" his own cabal efforts related to the Pentagon.
(b) He has never come forth with an "I agree," "I disagree," or "I am researching and don't know yet."
(c) He has not invited me to give a presentation to his panel, despite my offers.
(d) He has not interviewed me whether by email or video conference about my premise, despite my offers.
The lock-stepping "blackhole treatment" given to my 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons premise, however, is at another level and reflects poorly on Mr. McKee (and Mr. Adam Ruff.) Using Mr. Ruff's own definition above, they both get hit with "not being genuine truthers."
To be fair, the blackhole treatment might be valid for a completely irrational and unsupportable 9/11 hobby-horse theory, like: "Haribo Goldbears destroyed the WTC complex from unsuspecting vending machines on each floor."
Such blatant craziness wasn't worth the time of celebrity truthers to even acknowledge. But because it is such low-hanging fruit of wrongness, one or more celebrity truthers (or their minions) might venture to briefly take it seriously just for shits-and-giggles and legitimately publicly debunk such false notions: "Gummi-bears aren't explosive; the dust didn't contain Gummi-bear residue; Gummi-bears melt and evaporate in temperatures many orders of magnitude below that required to weaken steel into bending; etc."
The point is, My 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons theory is not "Haribo Gummi-bears," and has been substantiated and promoted to the highest levels of rational discourse.
- FGNW also isn't WTC no-plane-theory (NPT) disinfo, which can be debunked legitimately owing to (a) improper physical descriptions of both the towers and airplanes, (b) improper descriptions of the observed damage, (c) improper description of the high-velocity physics, (d) improper usage of video frame rates and broadcast & inherent flaws in the video recordings. WARNING: Legitimate debunking requires acknowledging and preserving nuggets-of-truth. In this case, one such nugget is a complicit media with foreknowledge of the event -- exhibited by the miracle pan and zoom to an approaching aircraft the human eye could not see.
- FGNW also isn't Woodsian-DEW disinfo despite technically being in the category of DEW. Woodsian-DEW -- beaming energy from a distance (from above) to a target -- can be debunked legitimately owing to (a) atmospheric optics and wavelengths conducive to energy transfer, (b) logistics of real-world power sources for DEW, and (c) Dr. Judy Wood not connecting dots or drawing conclusions. Can't be promoted as an end-station of 9/11 Truth if both she and her brain-dead minions promote as a strength that "she draws no conclusions." WARNING: Legitimate debunking requires acknowledging and preserving nuggets-of-truth from her work -- lots of anomalous evidence --, and must have a theory to address.
- FGNW also -- shockingly -- isn't the "nuke premise" despite technically being nuclear devices. The typical "nuke premise" that Mr. Adam Ruff decries is "disinformation" can be debunked legitimately owing to (a) limiting nuclear discussion to 1st through 3rd generation devices, (b) framing the nuclear yield to those devices and too large, (c) assuming one one device "deep underground" per tower, (c) attributing the geological formation below WTC-4 to the towers' nukes, (d) not mentioning ever neutron devices, much less their late-3rd/early-4th gen offspring. WARNING: FGNW nuggets of truth were data-mined and preserved from all sorts of 9/11 sources; they aren't in dispute. The issue is that collected together, FGNW easily explains them and nano-thermite comes nowhere close.
The FGNW theory isn't disinformation; shouldn't be lumped with NPT, Woodsian-DEW, or deep underground nukes; and most importantly of all, hasn't been legitimately (or even illegitimately) debunked by anyone [including Mr. Ruff who dings his objectivity by bragging about not ever going to read it.] Blackhole treatment.
And I have most certainly been doing my darnedest to shop it around PRECISELY to get it DEBUNKED LEGITIMATELY. Just in recent weeks/months:
- I submitted it to IC911. No response of substance, except for their own stupidity in using MS Word on a well-formatted HTML document.
- I offered to present to Mr. Gene Laratonda's 9/11 War Room over a week ago. No response.
- I offered to present to Mr. McKee's panel. [Big step in me being willing to give actual VOICE to my decade-old hobby-horse.] Oh no! The online-Batman pseudonym that I've consistently used since the aughts of this century somehow is an issue! I could reveal my Bruce Wayne to a select set of panel members (that excludes Mr. Adam Ruff), but my Bruce Wayne neither makes nor breaks the FGNW theory and is just lame way of implementing the blackhole treatment.
- I offered to interview with Mr. McKee many times: initially as written question/answer, then telephone conversations, and more recent in a video chat and/or conference. Mr. McKee has long known my Bruce Wayne.
So, Mr. Ruff. I am clearly in a different league of truther, more sincere and genuine than you despite my pseudonym. What is disinformation is your attempts to label it FALSELY and associate it with other (disinfo) theories and their champions.
Is this enough verbiage for you, Mr. Ruff? Oh, snap! If you're reading this below the "Expand full comment..." fold, then you've just dinged your own integrity and flagged your inability to keep your own promises -- however stupid they were for you to repeatedly make -- of "not going reading my comments."
Were I not so sincere and earnest, I'd be yelling "gotcha!" at this point to a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g Mr. Ruff might be inclined to respond to from this missive.
But I am a fair and generous fellow (and Master Mason.) This is an invitation for Mr. Ruff (and others) to respond LEGITIMATELY... to the details of the FGNW theory as already published. "Legitimately" means, "you make a claim, you defend the claim." You'll have to prove the FGNW theory is disinformation, section-by-section and bullet-by-bullet. You will be hoisted by your own pertards if you drop derogatory hypnotic suggestion on my FGNW hobby-horse without substantion.
My substack, my blog, my Facebook, my email: are available for such learned discussion. Unblock me, idiot.
In conclusion, the blackhole treatment offered my 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons theory validates the theory on circumstantial grounds alone.
For the latter-day lurker readers who have read this far, the FGNW theory has the starter version on my Substack. Sincere truth seekers will need to follow the link from Substack to my blog in order to have working reference notes [where the meat and Easter Eggs are. Bwahahaha!]
// Part 2/2
x228 Maxwell C. Bridges : debunked NPT@WTC, saved my work, and made it available
2024-02-06
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Jonathan Revusky, to Mr. Ruff's hypnotic suggestion -- "Video fakery is debunked disinformation" -- I agree with your response.
You wrote: "No, I don't think so. This is just a typical disinfo tactic, to say something has been debunked when it has not been. Point me to a comprehensive debunking."
It just so happens that video fakery from the likes of September Clues were a 9/11 hobby-horse that I once rode, very skilfully, I might add. But there were always nagging things about the presentation and what they were claiming as evidence. I did discover its deceit and have since many times over debunked it.
Unlike Mr. Ruff, I saved my work. Precisely for moments like this.
From Volume 3 of my "NPT@WTC Discussions", you can navigate to all 10 rounds (as in, "merry-go-rounds") of me trying to disabuse lurker readers [not the NPT disinfo agents who have agendas that won't let them admit error or change their minds] of the 9/11 NPT video fakery notion.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/nptwtc-discussions-vol-3.html
Just about any NPT argument you could come up with, I have probably already addressed in those 10 rounds.
However, the last seemingly out-of-place section "x582 Maxwell C. Bridges : Physical evidence of WTC planes" of the following URL was one of the major bullets that knocked the NPT@WTC 9/11 hobby-horse out from underneath me. Forced me to publicly recant and apologize.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
Because I had been duped by the clever disinformation of September Clues (and others), I felt it my duty as a fellow truther (who is sincere and earnest in my efforts) to help prevent others from making the same mistakes I made. Although debunking NPT@WTC wasn't my hobby-horse, I did so as a favor to others.
FYI, video fakery did happen, for example the Pentagon parking camera. There's also four different versions of the helicopter shot. Corporate media was complicit. Nuggets of truth rescued.
However, video fakery did not happen to the extent that could conclusively proves no aircraft at the WTC.
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: "And no I am not going to debunk it AGAIN here because this article is not about that."
I would be curious for Mr. Ruff to post the URL to where he debunked video fakery conclusively that first time (or any time), if he's going to be bragging about having done it. I suspect either (a) Mr. Ruff has no such body of work, or (b) Mr. Ruff used a sockpuppet (HybridRogue1, perhaps?) that he doesn't want to reveal or associate with himself, but that even his sockpuppet's efforts to debunk video fakery won't actually measure up.
At any rate, this off-topic thread can be ended, because I have debunked NPT@WTC, saved my work, and made it available for others. A GOTO moment that saves me from having to repeat myself or distract from the discussion.
//
x230 Maxwell C. Bridges : tone is off and not that objective
2024-02-06
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. McKee, Not your best work. I think the tone is off and not that objective. Plus you have formatting inconsistencies when it comes to quoting from others, particularly what turns out to be a multi-paragraph quote from Sandra that absolutely has to be fixed. Get it to match the lengthy multi-paragraph blockquote later from Gene with the blockquote bar on the left so at a glance we know it is a quote. And why are single-paragraph quotes not matching the formatting for Gene's? And maybe beef-up the bullet on those multi-paragraphs that seem to be weakly formatted unordered lists, but could also be copy-paste errors.
For Mr. Adam Ruff's benefit, the above is "on-topic" without even mentioning the topic. Bwahahaha! It is important feedback about the article equivalent to pointing out typos, a professional courtesy for Mr. McKee.
Mr. McKee, referring to the topic of your piece, you wrote these sentences that are quoted here out of both context & sequence: "A couple of years ago, Chandler also said that AE is infiltrated by agents and the leadership refuses to do anything about it. ... The members of this cabal, who all gained their 'truther cred' by jumping on the controlled demolition bandwagon (and by associating with AE911Truth)... Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth is under attack."
Any astute student of history would have expected that ~any~ organized group to emerge from within the loose 9/11 Truth Movement would have its very founding be steeped in "infiltration." [Starting with Dr. Steven Jones.]
As a vetted member of AE911Truth and expecting more from its active science-literate members & leaders, I have standing to criticize AE911Truth and to be thoroughly pissed off at their gate-keeping in the one area where they supposedly earned 'truther cred': the demolition of the WTC complex.
AE911Truth deserves to be under attack. It deserves to be imploded by its build-in self-destruct mechanisms, which can be the details of its (FAQ) work leading the public to false conclusions, the character of its champions, or both. AE911Truth had so many purposeful and fundamental flaws, it was destined to be -- pun-intended specifically for Mr. Adam Ruff -- "nuked" and have no valid lasting legacy... With but one exception. AE911Truth requires a memorial and/or monument and deserves to be studied for the clever and crafty disinformation & infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Mr. McKee, your major blind-spot is that "the controlled demolition bandwagon" of AE911Truth is the ~FIRST~ area where the infiltration by agents was put into action, not the Pentagon. They accepted unquestioned and unchallenged shitty analysis by various government institutions; they slow-walked what became their own shitty analysis; they put on a siding and left in neglect to rust many valid WTC topics like WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6; they foisted up faulty, limited hang-out explanations (NT) for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7; and they would not legitimately debunk competing (disinfo) premises.
Mr. Adam Ruff has always been prone to lay down rules for discussion (that he later fails to follow). Here are a couple of relevant gems from the past, his definitions of a real & genuine truther:
[2015-10-05] "A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one."
[2015-10-29] "A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do."
//
x232 Craig McKee : attempt to hijack every comment section
2024-02-05
Craig McKee
On the grounds that there appears to be an attempt to hijack every comment section, both here and on Facebook, by raising things like no planes or nukes at the towers. These are not the topics of my articles.
x234 Maxwell C. Bridges : batshit-crazy to be opposed to both lazy consensus 9/11 Truthers and the disinfo fringe agent-truthers
2024-02-06
Maxwell C. Bridges
2024-02-06 {mcb not published}
Dear Mr. McKee, Lying does not become you, nor does associating the trolling actions of the Woodsian-DEWers and the NPTers with my rational, researched, reasoned, and on-topic (even if verbose) comments. I'm not spamming the forum in many threads with interjected copy-and-paste canned replies.
My comments are relevant to either the article or the comment being replied to in the thread. I reply when I have something to say. My comments are unique. "Expand full comment" features prevent their length from being categorized as spam.
The topic of the discussion is "the 9/11 cabal" and its lackeys, minions, gate-keepers, and infiltrated groups, AE911Truth. You have issues with them regarding the Pentagon. You admit they got their "truther credentials" from their work in analyzing the WTC demolition.
In all of your poking at the cabal's deceit on the Pentagon, you blatantly and purposely miss the fact that cabal's deceit originates in their WTC demolition analysis, which torpedoes their "truther credentials," their reputations, their integrity.
I have performed a great service to the 9/11 Truth Movement by having spelunked into all manner of 9/11 rabbit-holes, identified the disinfo, and rescued the nuggets of truth.
I have issues with most of the members of that very same cabal with regards to (1) the demolition of the entire WTC complex, (2) the disinfo theories that they promote, and (3) the blackhole treatment given to legitimate alternate (nuclear) considerations.
I am truly the odd-man-out here, because somehow my 9/11 hobby-horse is triangulated to get token opposition but mostly the blackhole treatment from e.v.e.r.y.o.n.e of note in the 9/11 Truth Movement: the 9/11 cabal, IC911, Woodsian-DEWers, Mr. Richard Gage, Mr. David Chandler, Mr. Wayne Coste, Dr. Judy Wood,9 /11 Revisionist, Mr. Gene Laratonda, 9/11-nukers, ..., Mr. Adam Ruff, and Mr. Craig McKee.
Let this be a testament to my religious fanaticism and me being fanatical about Truth. How batshit-crazy is it to be opposed to both lazy consensus 9/11 Truthers and the disinfo fringe agent-truthers?!!
//
x236 Maxwell C. Bridges : the dying 9/11 Truth Movment
2024-02-09
Maxwell C. Bridges
2024-02-09 {mcb not sent}
Dear Mr. McKee, I watched your portion of the 2024-01-31 9/11 teleconference. Sad on many levels. Reminds me of the 20th, 25th, and 30th anniversary of JFK's assassination, where even the best conspiracy-oriented speculation seeded by a bunch of gray-haired conspiracy researchers into the objective and open-minds of the those now grown old enough to understand still led to do-nothing cul-de-sacs and parallysis to change things, while other more imminent issues marched in, on, and over to dominate public thought. Your panel (and myself) are now over twenty years older since the event, gray-haired people talking amongst ourselves.
While bemoaning the dying 9/11 Truth Movment in the teleconference, one of the (female) participants said it was because people had moved on to other issues. True. Today, Israel and big pharma COVID.
I feel for your exhibited sorrow at the dying nature of AE911Truth and how nobody seems to care. Do you really want to save AE911Truth?
Evolution and Contrition. Or vice versa and in repetition.
This is the only viable way forward: for AE911Truth, for other 9/11 groups, and for individuals.
Evolution encompasses underlying skills, such as the integrity to have an open-mind to objectivity consider the new analysis (FGNW, Pentagon) and change understanding. Upon such realizations, growth and evolution isn't complete without publicly apologizing for having led others astray and taking steps to fix the unwitted damage.
If the new AE911Truth leadership doesn't evolve and demonstrate contrition with respect to FGNW, they do not deserved to survive their slow death into irrelevance. IC911 has the same challenge only worse, because they were the champions that parked public understanding in untenible cul-de-sacs. Assuming IC911 can evolve, they have much more for which to ask forgiveness. They probably won't, so FGNW remains their Achilles Heel.
Watching your nervous bob-and-weave and repeated "you-know" inflections on-camera, I recognized that my web conference performance would be no better and possibly even worse, and probably not the oratory wonder of my day-dreams.
I get the impression from those who spoke on the panel, that each has their own niche hobby-horse and are tightly bound through cognitive dissonance into thinking their minds are as open as they can get but probably are not open enough to tending the needs of a new hobby-horse.
I no longer have a burning desire to speak to the panel of that 9/11 teleconference. Anyway, I now have a Masonic Lodge conflict for the 2024-02-28 date. However, if you want to get the Adam's (Syed and Ruff) together and any others you might seem fit to corral, I'd be willing to present and defend my thesis on some other off-date on one of your recorded zoom sessions.
//
Part 9: NPT@WTC Discussions with Jonathan Revusky
x238 Maxwell C. Bridges : NPT@WTC discussion
2024-02-07
Dear Mr. Jonathan Revusky,
Debunking the NPT@WTC disinfo isn't my 9/11 hobby-horse, but it is
within my realm of interest, given that I had been duped by this
clever, crafty, disinfo premise.
Here's me opening the channels of discussion.
// mcb = Maxwell C. Bridges
x240 Jonathan Revusky : it does not seem like you are making a strong argument
2024-02-11
date: Feb 11, 2024, 3:58 PM
subject: Re: NPT@WTC discussion
Hi Max. Thanks for the note and sorry to be so slow getting back to you.
I looked through the stuff you linked and, quite frankly, it does not seem like you are making a strong argument. Here is how I see things. Suppose you go to a magic show with a child. You, as an adult, know perfectly well that everything you are presented with is some sort of illusion. The child wants very much to believe and insists that it is all real magic. So you explain to the child that these are all illusions.
The child insists that you explain to him exactly how each illusion was constructed, and quite naturally, you are at a loss. You cannot answer. The child now exclaims triumphantly: "You see! This is real magic!"
Quite frankly, in these discussions you link, you are taking on the role of the child.
Or look at it this way... they present us a series of visuals that allegedly correspond to what they say happened. The truth is that some of it is laughably crude, like the plane just sort of melting into the steel-framed building. But regardless of how crude or polished it is, we can deduce perfectly well that it is just a gimmick, not real.
Like, for example, we know that the Apollo moon landings are fake. Why? Well, if the technology does not exist to send men to the moon (and bring them back) in 2024, and it pretty clearly does not, then such technology did not exist in 1969. It's ridiculous. Case closed. If you want to get into the whole conversation about the radiation and the fake photography and the fake moon rocks and the rest of it, fine, but it's kind of pointless. You cannot overcome the first order problem: the technology to go to the moon does not exist now, so it did not exist 55 years ago.
It is very simple to understand that there were no real plane crashes on 9/11. The simple fact is that the planners of the operation would have a strong preference for a plan with fewer points of failure, as opposed to more points of failure. The whole idea that the planners of the operation would introduce so many extra points of failure so that maybe 20 people there (it's surely not much more) could see a plane crash into a building in real-time... the whole story is really quite silly. The important thing is that millions, actually billions of people saw it on the TV. If there are a very small number of people who were present and didn't see the plane hit the building when they should have, it's really just not much of a problem for the perps. The whole idea that they mounted this very complex production, making planes fly into buildings for real, for the benefit of a couple of dozen random people, nobodies... if you think about it seriously, it's just absurd. And to be making arguments like "there's a hole, it was made by a plane crashing into a building". And then the other person says: "No, it wasn't". And you're going to argue "Well, if the hole was not made by a plane hitting the building then what made the hole?" Well, I don't know for sure, but I know it wasn't a plane.
Besides, all of this controlled opposition half-truth movement is so adamant that the plane crashes are real, that if there were really a strong argument for it, they would just forthrightly make the argument. But no, they run away. That asshole Adam Ruff asked me for my email to send me the relevant links. He never sent me anything, which was more or less what I anticipated. It was just a bluff.
Of course there were no planes. No victims either. It's all fake, just a big mediatic hoax. Well, of course, they did blow up the buildings somehow or other. But basically everything else is fake. Just about...
And, as far as I'm concerned that's about it.
Regards,
Jon
x242 Maxwell C. Bridges : does not make a cohesive argument
2024-02-11
date: Feb 11, 2024, 7:48 PM
Dear Mr. Revusky,
Thank you for your reply. You are correct that the disorganized
sum-total of my NPT@WTC efforts does not make a cohesive argument that
could disabuse someone of that false notion. But the onus isn't on me
to make that case. The main reason I presented it was so that you
would have foreknowledge of my counter-NPT arguments that have
probably already addressed your points. I was being fair and generous.
However instead, the onus is on you to make your NPT@WTC case. Start
presenting your evidence; I'll do a browser search on my previous
works; chances are very good I've already addressed your evidence, so
my reply will probably re-use (but might be freshly authored) my past
efforts.
And to save us time, here's some physical evidence of actual aircraft
that your NPT@WTC case needs to acknowledge and address.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Also, watch this little bit of magic where the Pentagon debunks
NPT@WTC. To do that, let's briefly assume true your contention that
all of the imagery at the WTC of an aircraft was faked. Not just any
old faked; a good portion of it was real-time faked as the aircraft
approached, while later over time the "amateur" videos were faked.
Therefore, if the PTB had the image fakery skills to real-time fake
WTC aircraft, why couldn't they have also faked, say, a dozen of the
86+ surveillance videos that they confiscated from around the
Pentagon? Why didn't they use those same video manipulation skills to
give us a few choice Hollywood style aircraft slamming into the
Pentagon?
The rhetorical answer is that they really didn't have the skills to
make perfect fakes to make their case with Pentagon plane videos.
Moreover, NPT@WTC seems to have been a disinfo gambit that was spun up
to purposely stupidly distract from the real events with no aircarft
impacts: Pentagon and Shanksville. NPT@WTC is a bit of
poisoning-the-well. People see how stupid it is, thereby
guilt-by-association the Pentagon couldn't actually be a case of no
aircraft.
Here's another trick. The proper description of high velocity physics
on the towers explains the validity of the pictured WTC evidence,
while at the same time debunking actual planes at the Pentagon. (High
velocity wings impacting the 5 alleged light poles along the alleged
flight path, to be physics compliant, would have left wing shards and
jet fuel along the alleged flight path, well before the Pentagon wall.
BTW, image fakery is quite different from the entire NPT@WTC argument.
Image manipulation did happen. [Pentagon parking stills; four (4)
versions of the helicopter shot of the incoming plane, etc.] Wouldn't
surprise me if their tampering with the WTC plane videos was to insert
colored bits fame-by-frame to give the appearance of the logos of the
suspect airlines. Also, a complicit media with lots of foreknowledge
[e.g., miracle pan and zoom from helicopter onto approaching plane the
human eye could not yet see] is also different than image fakery. [Too
often NPT@WTC is framed in such a stilted manner, it screams to be
debunked so that nuggets of truth contained therein -- some image
fakery, complicit corporate media -- gets thrown out in a
guilt-by-association manner when really they should be preserved.]
However, strategically,the operation absolutely required real aircraft
at the WTC where there was a huge audience with cameras and corporate
media with cameras, because they knew they were going to shock-and-awe
repeat such crash footage over and over, and every year. To the degree
that 9/11 was a ruse, the real aircraft at the WTC were fundamental to
it.
To sum up, the physical evidence of aircraft at the WTC as per the URL
provided needs you to address it.
WARNING: That punch-out URL was like the straw that broke the camel's
back in terms of trusting September Clues and NPT@WTC. There were many
other straws on the camel's back, like when I went down the Clue's
Crew's rabbit holes of September Clues and found them (e.g., Simon
Shack and co.) to be less than genuine. They couldn't talk outside
their niche; they couldn't debunk other premises; they had a faulty
position statement that "ALL imagery was faked." That pesky word "all"
they could not defend. [I was going to have them prove that the images
in Dr. Wood's collection were faked. I was quickly banned.]
Only for shits-and-giggles do I reply, but I do take Truth seriously.
// mcb
x244 Jonathan Revusky : the most basic rhetorical trick, shifting the burden of proof
2024-02-11
date: Feb 11, 2024, 10:41 PM
subject: Re: NPT@WTC discussion
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 3:49 AM Bruecke
Dear Mr. Revusky,
Thank you for your reply. You are correct that the disorganized sum-total of my NPT@WTC efforts does not make a cohesive argument that could disabuse someone of that false notion.
Well, the onus is on you to demonstrate that this is a false notion.
But the onus isn't on me to make that case.
Oh really? Why not? You claim that there really were plane crashes at the WTC. As far as I can see, all common sense says there were not. In fact, the available physical evidence (lack thereof...) suggests there were not. Where are the plane parts? Why is the video record so obviously fake?
The main reason I presented it was so that you would have foreknowledge of my counter-NPT arguments that have probably already addressed your points. I was being fair and generous.
Well, maybe you were, whatever precisely that means. But you were not producing any argument! LOL!
However instead, the onus is on you to make your NPT@WTC case.
No, I don't think so. Of course, we understand that this is the most basic rhetorical trick, shifting the burden of proof. But really, it's no good. You can't really be in the position of demanding that the other person prove a negative. At the limit, you make a claim, like the moon is made of green cheese and then demand that the other person disprove it! Or you demand that the other person tell you precisely what the moon is made of... whatever...
Start presenting your evidence; I'll do a browser search on my previous works; chances are very good I've already addressed your evidence, so my reply will probably re-use (but might be freshly authored) my past efforts.
I'm not interested in playing this game. Look, if you went to a movie and one of the things that happens in the movie is that a big plane crashes into a tall building and the movie has some quite compelling visual effects and so on... the very last thing you would ever believe is that the people who made this movie actually crashed a plane into a building for real. You understand that this is video trickery of some sort. If somebody demands that you explain exactly how they did that, you typically would not be able to answer because you are not a specialist in such questions. But you still know that they did not fly any plane into a building.
And to save us time, here's some physical evidence of actual aircraft that your NPT@WTC case needs to acknowledge and address.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Well, basically, you're posing the question of how these visuals exist if they did not fly a plane into a building for real. Well, I don't know the exact answer, but I don't think there is that strong an onus on me to do so.
Also, watch this little bit of magic where the Pentagon debunks NPT@WTC. To do that, let's briefly assume true your contention that all of the imagery at the WTC of an aircraft was faked.
I never said all the imagery was faked. Possibly the picture of the hole in the building is real. Probably. But I don't believe that the only way that they can show you the picture of a hole in a building is by flying a plane into it.
Not just any old faked; a good portion of it was real-time faked as the aircraft approached, while later over time the "amateur" videos were faked.
Well, like I say, I'm not a specialist in such questions, but I think that people who are honest and are specialists, they look at the visuals from that day and see that it's plainly faked. I could point you to some video analysis by people who seem to know what they are talking about. Regardless, it's really so ludicrous that they would do this by flying the planes into the buildings for real that... it's just ridiculous.
Therefore, if the PTB had the image fakery skills to real-time fake WTC aircraft, why couldn't they have also faked, say, a dozen of the 86+ surveillance videos that they confiscated from around the Pentagon?
Well, the answer is that I don't know. Why did they blow up building 7 which provides such a clue that the whole thing was preplanned? I honestly don't know. They got away with it anyway, so...
Why didn't they use those same video manipulation skills to give us a few choice Hollywood style aircraft slamming into the Pentagon?
As best I've ever been able to guess, the video of the plane slamming into the WTC had most of its value in terms of trauma based mind control. To show us more videos of planes hitting buildings would just be superfluous. Also, there are probably technical reasons that the Pentagon scene was harder to fake. But these are silly arguments. Suppose I claim that I swam the English Channel and I climbed Mount Everest. I did neither, but for some reason, I show some fake video of me supposedly swimming the English Channel, but I show no video evidence at all of me climbing Mount Everest. Or the other way round. So why did I show a video of one but not the other? Well, I dunno. Maybe just to f*** with your mind. Or who knows? But these sorts of things do not constitute much of an argument.
The fact remains that I did not swim the English Channel and I did not climb Mount Everest. And, by the same token, there was no plane crash at the WTC and there was no plane crash at the Pentagon. That they showed a fake video for one, but just told the story for the other... why? I don't know. Why does it even matter?
The rhetorical answer is that they really didn't have the skills to make perfect fakes to make their case with Pentagon plane videos.
Well, the fakes they showed for WTC were very far from perfect and that didn't stop them.
Moreover, NPT@WTC seems to have been a disinfo gambit that was spun up to purposely stupidly distract from the real events with no aircarft impacts: Pentagon and Shanksville. NPT@WTC is a bit of poisoning-the-well. People see how stupid it is, thereby guilt-by-association the Pentagon couldn't actually be a case of no aircraft.
I'm sorry. I have to admit that I just don't understand your point in the above. I don't think there were any plane impacts at any of these sites, and what argument are you making that would cause me to change my mind about that?
Here's another trick. The proper description of high velocity physics on the towers explains the validity of the pictured WTC evidence,
So the visuals they showed us for the WTC crash, that's actually what it looks like when a plane hits a steel-framed building...
I don't think so, but assuming I'm wrong about that, it's not clear to me what argument you are making that would sway me to change my view.
while at the same time debunking actual planes at the Pentagon. (High velocity wings impacting the 5 alleged light poles along the alleged flight path, to be physics compliant, would have left wing shards and jet fuel along the alleged flight path, well before the Pentagon wall.
BTW, image fakery is quite different from the entire NPT@WTC argument. Image manipulation did happen. [Pentagon parking stills; four (4) versions of the helicopter shot of the incoming plane, etc.] Wouldn't surprise me if their tampering with the WTC plane videos was to insert colored bits fame-by-frame to give the appearance of the logos of the suspect airlines. Also, a complicit media with lots of foreknowledge [e.g., miracle pan and zoom from helicopter onto approaching plane the human eye could not yet see] is also different than image fakery. [Too often NPT@WTC is framed in such a stilted manner, it screams to be debunked so that nuggets of truth contained therein -- some image fakery, complicit corporate media -- gets thrown out in a guilt-by-association manner when really they should be preserved.]
Look, it's a trivial exercise in critical thinking to realize that the plot centers around video fakery, not around actual planes hitting buildings. Getting the actual planes to hit the buildings at the exact point in time/space that is necessary... Tell me one thing. In your view, did they carry out this operation with real planes without doing any test run beforehand? So they counted on all this working exactly according to plan the first (and only) time it's ever attempted?
However, strategically,the operation absolutely required real aircraft
at the WTC where there was a huge audience
There was not a huge audience. That's nonsense. There's a huge audience for the TV transmission (whether faked or not, obviously, but it was faked) but the audience of people in real-time who just happen to be looking at the right point at the exact right moment, that is a very small number of people. In fact, I have seen it claimed that there were a total of 20 people who claim, on record, to have seen the plane hit the building in real time. Apparently all 20 work for either the media or the government. Go figure. But regardless, the whole idea that the perpetrators mounted this whole show of planes hitting buildings for real, for the benefit of a couple of dozen random people...nobodies... that's basically ludicrous.
with cameras and corporate media with cameras, because they knew they were going to shock-and-awe repeat such crash footage over and over, and every year.
No, they made fake videos to shock-and-awe people with repeatedly.
To the degree that 9/11 was a ruse, the real aircraft at the WTC were fundamental to it.
No. The fake video footage was fundamental to it.
To sum up, the physical evidence of aircraft at the WTC as per the URL provided needs you to address it.
How about some airplane debris, parts with serial numbers... Where is that?
By the way, do you believe that the planes that crashed into the WTC (so you say) were stock Boeing passenger jets or something else?
But this gets silly. Take those ass clowns, Craig McKee and his butt buddy Adam Ruff. If they had any real evidence for their planer position, why would they be so insistent on shutting down the discussion. That asshole Ruff never wrote me any email, even after requesting my email to send me the evidence or links or whatever. Just a bluff. Just bullshit.
And frankly, you're just bullshitting. You don't really have any argument that passes the proverbial laugh test.
You can write me back some more and I may even engage in what you're saying. Or I might not bother to reply. I don't honestly know. There is nothing you've said so far that would have any tendency to shift my position even a millimeter. All you have to do is look at the operation from the POV of the perps and it is utterly obvious that they would never fly planes into the buildings for real. It's just too risky and prone to failure, and completely unnecessary, so they wouldn't do it. So they didn't.
Regards,
Jon
x246 Maxwell C. Bridges : bonus points for your verbiage and for never once making an argument for NPT@WTC
2024-02-12
date: Feb 12, 2024, 9:17 AM
subject: Re: NPT@WTC discussion
Dear Mr. Revusky,
You get bonus points for your verbiage and for never once making an
argument for NPT@WTC. Present your evidence and analysis that
undergirds your NPT@WTC argument.
I wrote: "And to save us time, here's some physical evidence of actual
aircraft that your NPT@WTC case needs to acknowledge and address."
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
You replied: "Well, basically, you're posing the question of how these
visuals exist if they did not fly a plane into a building for real.
Well, I don't know the exact answer, but I don't think there is that
strong an onus on me to do so."
Quite the contrary. There is a super-strong onus on you to explain how
the "no aircraft" ruse left major aircraft parts in physics-compliant
locations. My favorite is the aircraft tire wedged between two
hollow-box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped out of the
backside of WTC-1. The wheel and wall assembly were photographed from
multiple angles lying in the parking lot outside of WTC-1 before
either tower came down.
The punch out evidence is very damning to NPT@WTC. So damning, it
caused me to recant and apologize for my NPT@WTC views.
The PTB had deep pockets, and the interrupted gold-heist under WTC-4
on 9/11 was one revenue stream of many that would pay for sacrificial
aircraft, whether or not insurance kicked in.
The two sets of radar data from two different systems that depict
within tolerances a co-linear flight path of a flying object is also
pretty damning to the NPT@WTC argument.
But please. Stick with the pictures of large pieces of physical
evidence of aircraft. Explain how they came to be with NPT@WTC. The
timing of the appearance of the evidence is pretty important (moments
to minutes after the observed aircraft impact). To be staged under
such timing constraints means involving more agents to plant the
evidence. How is that easier than just sacrificing real planes that
the PDB wanted/needed the public to see?
Onus is on you to make the NPT@WTC case, and to address the evidence
(e.g., how it came to be) that might counter your claim.
//
x248 Jonathan Revusky : arguing like a little child
2024-02-12
Max, you're arguing like a little child. Or like an Amish person who somehow never went to the movies. If a plane hits a building in a Hollywood movie, you know perfectly well that they didn't fly a plane into the building for real. You may also not know how they constructed the illusion, but you know it's an illusion all the same. The whole notion that they flew planes into buildings for the benefit of maybe a few dozen people, when hundreds of millions, billions of people see whatever video or photos they can show on the TV -- basically it's demented.
I can't really continue the conversation with you much more. It's a waste of my time quite frankly. You're playing a childish little game. I asked you a specific question, which is whether you think the planes that hit the buildings were stock Boeing passenger jets. You did not answer. This is typical when you're talking to dishonest people. They always get to ask you every manner of stupid question and then they never forthrightly answer a question.
So, again: in your opinion, were the planes that hit the buildings stock Boeing passenger jets or something else?
x250 Maxwell C. Bridges : Even children know when the alleged "adult" is cheating, not debating in good faith, playing games, and weaseling out of their own promises
2024-02-12
Dear Mr. Revusky,
You can't continue the conversation with me, because the evidence is
too damning of real aircraft involvement.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Even children know when the alleged "adult" is cheating, not debating
in good faith, playing games, and weaseling out of their own promises.
You make the claim that no planes were involved at all at the WTC; you
defend the claim. In defending your claim, you are required to address
the physical evidence of large pieces of aircraft debris as provided
in the wtc-punch link. [FTR, this evidence -- until debunked by your
wisdom and stellar intellect -- is considered as sufficient proof of
real aircraft at the WTC.]
Your final question about the nature of the aircraft is a good one.
Given that the large chunks of aircraft were not serial-numbered
matched to the alleged aircraft in any report, it might be valid to
say: "the actual aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft."
But this is a very different argument than "there were no aircraft at
the WTC at all," which is your position.
Why don't you present the (lame) argument about the plane passing
through its own length in the same number of frames that it entered
the building? [Debunked in a discussion with Dr. James Fetzer.] Why
don't you talk about the "cartoon" outline on the building? Why don't
you talk about how the wings and tail didn't snap off and bounce off
of the building and to the ground as cohesive wholes? [A proper
description of the physics at play debunks these, already written up?]
Or how about the engine flying a couple of football fields, bouncing
off of a building, and falling to the ground rolling to a stop under
some scaffolding? [Exit velocity of 122 mph could go that distance.]
At any rate, if you're not going to address the large pieces of
physical evidence of real aircraft [at the link], then you lose the
debate by default and ping your integrity for your boastful but
piss-poor efforts.
// mcb
x252 Maxwell C. Bridges : Here's the big thing
2024-02-25
Here's the big thing that will "nuclear-energize" the 9/11 Truth Movement.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
I've done my homework, shopped my thesis around precisely to get it
debunked, yet still the hobby-horse survives.
The reference links are where the easter eggs are.
//
2024-02-25
Sun, Feb 25, 4:58 PM
to me
Thank you. Are you the person that was asking why TAP had not responded?
x256 Maxwell C. Bridges : asking for what we're going to do to motivate the 9/11 Truth Movement
2024-02-25
No, not me.
I just heard you asking for what we're going to do to motivate the
9/11 Truth Movement.
BTW, sorry about the subject line. Should have been "Here's the big
thing." The computer I was using tends to have its cache fill up and
then doesn't render things, like text in the URL address. Could also
be considered a virus or meddling in my computer.
//
x258 Maxwell C. Bridges : Keep unity in your mind
2024-02-25
Oh, okay. I wasn't sure who said they hadn't received a response from TAP.
Thank you for letting me know and for sharing this.
Keep unity in your mind; I believe we're on the same side for peace and justice.
Best regards,
Trina
x260 Maxwell C. Bridges : keep "Truth" in my mind
2024-02-26
Mon, Feb 26, 5:47 PM
to Trina
Dear Ms. Trina,
I apologize in advance for my "assholiness" verbosely expressed below.
You wrote: "Keep unity in your mind."
No, I keep "Truth" in my mind.
Unity in the 9/11 Truth Movement is a fool's errand, in part because
it was so thoroughly infiltrated from the get-go that every "major"
9/11 conspiracy theory was seeded disinformation. I'm not just talking
"no planes at the WTC", pods-on-planes, hollow-towers, and simVictims,
but also Woodsian-DEW (beams-from-above), deep-underground nukes, and
nano-thermite. All limited hang-outs.
Any astute student of history would have suspected that any (if not
all or most) organized groups (like AE911Truth) arising from the
original loose 9/11 Truth Movement WOULD BE INFILTRATED and controlled
somehow.
I am a vetted member of AE911Truth. I have reviewed the works of Dr.
Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Woodl, and Dr. James Fetzer, the three founders
of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" before and after their faux implosion and
they went their separate ways to distill their separate brands of 9/11
disinformation.
9/11 Truthers like to pride themselves on being open-minded and
discerning, which is what got them in the first place to question the
many anomalies of 9/11. They think, because of this, they don't suffer
from cognitive dissonance like the vast majority of the public (living
pay-check to pay-check and worried about basic needs) who had no time
or inclination to look into the government deceit, far away in
Washington and no ability to change.
But in reality, because of this pride of an open-mind, 9/11 Truthers
can be afflicted by cognitive dissonance to equal or greater extents.
They think, because a PhD told them something about 9/11, that
something must be the complete and total truth... Even when the PhD's
themselves drop Easter Eggs and say otherwise.
For example, Dr. Steven Jones said the incendiary NT needed to be
mixed with something having more brisance, like RDX; Dr. Steven Jones
said something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT. The fact
that no effort was made (or encouraged for others to do) to find those
"something else's" is telling. Before he did this shoddy effort, Dr.
Steven Jones, a nuclear physicist, supposedly repudiated ALL forms of
nuclear involvement by accepting unquestioned and unchallenged various
government reports on samples; by framing the nuclear devices as 1st
thru 3rd generation devices with large blast waves that spread lots of
radiation; and by not mentioning neutron devices, much less their
"exotic" FGNW offspring.
Another example, AE911Truth has an FAQ to debunk "nuclear blasts"
destroying the towers [which the FAQ does debunk and I agree] as a
means to poo-poo ALL nuclear weapons [the deceit]. The issue is, 80%
of the nuclear yield of the already tactical late-3rd / early-4th
generation devices is in the form of highly energetic neutrons, which
affect materials differently than the blast waves of the prior
generations. The remaining 20% yield of the FGNW is shared between its
blast wave (e.g., squib), heat wave (e.g., horseshoes), and EMP (e.g.,
torched cars on street and parking lot).
Technically, FGNW are in the category of DEW (Dr. Judy Wood), and
being nuclear powered, can exhibit excess and overkill energy in the
pulverizing destruction. Dr. Wood has great evidence that FGNW
addresses well, but not so much NT or Beams-from-above.
AE911Truth has another FAQ to debunk DEW and specifically Dr. Judy
Wood. They don't quote from Dr. Wood; they don't provide any images
from her work; and they spent 40% of their already-meager word-count
plugging nano-thermite.
Funny, because Dr. Wood's work can be legitimately debunked:
- Dr. Wood connects no dots and draws no conclusions, a supposed
selling point by many of Woodsian-DEWers. Except, if there's no
conclusions, then her work is not an end-station and shouldn't be
promoted as if it were an end-station and complete.
- Dr. Wood did a shitty job of research into DEW. Yes, active denial
systems, ABL, and even beams from space are real things, but the
frequencies conducive for efficient (destructive) energy transfer and
frequencies conducive for transmission through the atmosphere are two
different spectral ranges [lie by omission]. The observed destruction
of the towers was not tippy-top-down as suggested by "beams from
above." Destruction originated from within; it is on video. Dr. Wood
never considered mounting her DEW device on the insides, which could
have solved issues of optics through the atmosphere and having a huge
power source local, as opposed to far away.
- Dr. Wood did a shitty job of research into nuclear means.
- Dr. Wood's points to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 and implies for her
followers that the WTC-4 missing main edifice, the WTC-5 bore-holes,
and the WTC-6 crater came from DEW from above. She doesn't consider
devices on the inside, aimed upwards, and boring their holes from
ground floor going up and out the roof. The vaults under WTC-4 and
WTC-6 are the reasons why the destruction wasn't "outside top going
down" but was instead "inside bottom going up", because how would an
energy beam originating from the outside know when to stop in order to
more or less preserve their underground vaults? It wouldn't. But
devices at the ground floor and aimed upwards already solve that
problem.
Why then didn't AE911Truth's FAQ legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work?
Because they would have been forced into acknowledging a whole swath
of evidence that they can't explain. [Dr. Wood actually doesn't
explain it either except with dangling innuendo.]
Your statement about unity might be in reference to Mr. McKee and his
so-called the 9/11 Truther cabal preventing objectivity with the
Pentagon analysis. And this is causing disharmony.
However in the very area where this same cabal got their 9/11 truther
cred (WTC destruction), I have issues with the cabal's work. Major
disharmony. Even beloved Mr. David Chandler, whose videos I love.
*Bragging and patting myself on the back* I was the one who purchased
Dr. Wood's book and had it shipped to Mr. Chandler (with his
permission) for the purposes of helping me legitimately debunk it. I
did, but Mr. Chandler never did. Why? Because of the evidence.
Mr. Chandler got a BS in physics before he got a teaching certificate
for high school. He has the education to understand nuclear weapons
and the various evolutions of my premise. Blackhole treatment, he
doesn't go there.
When you go to my blog, you'll see I've been around the 9/11 block
many times, and saved my work. I've got what agents and trolls don't
ever have: legacy... DISCLAIMER: Don't be doing no A-Z reading of my
blog, such a repetitive bore it has become even for me! Plus my
thinking evolved.
Your skimming will show that I've been consistent, persistent, and
sincere, and have done what humble little me could do to have my FGNW
premise legitimately debunked by others that I would have been totally
and completely open to. [I submitted it to IC911Justice (Coste,
Chandler, the cabal) three months ago, and haven't gotten any feedback
or debunking or anything.]
At 60, white, and male, I'm going to exercise my privilege and briefly
give actual voice to my FGNW premise for a short run planting seeds,
so I can go back to being a nobody from Colorado.
Once sincere-seekers of 9/11 Truth read my premise (and discover the
Easter Eggs in the reference notes), the nuclear 9/11 will be so
obvious that they'll be seeing it leak out of everyone else's 9/11
evidence stacks.
This is the big thing that will nuclear energize your 9/11 Truth game.
Nobody can really take any case to court if they don't have the proper
mechanisms of destruction at hand. [It would be sad if they tried to
take NT to court only to have the opposition re-use my legitimate
debunking of NT.]
As for unity? Well, the validated 9/11 nuclear premise will have
figurative nuclear fallout on the cabal, AE911Truth, truther
celebrities, etc... Unless they can publicly state: "Based on this new
analysis of 9/11, I change my opinion and apologize to the public for
my previous views."
The way I see the rot that was at the core of AE911Truth, it could be
difficult to find "unity" with un-remorseful champions of those
limited hang-outs.
Hope that you can make my March 21 (6:30 pm EST) presentation to
Boston 9/11 Truth.
All the best,
// mcb
Part 10: FGNW Discussions with John Burr, Ross Migrating Bird
x262 John Burr : arrogance carry out genocide
2024-02-09
John Burr
Their arrogance, after getting away with 911, makes them think they can carry out a genocide with impunity too.
https://www.facebook.com/100010886467645/videos/339570812390585/
x264 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTC-6 innards getting zapped
2024-02-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. John Burr, Enjoyed that clip. As an aside, in the clip portion of the WTC-2 destruction that WTC-7 hid, there was another explosion that was WTC-6 and the dust cloud that it sent about that everyone assumes was debris from WTC-2 alone.
Edit: 1:16 in the video above. That's WTC-6's innards getting zapped, from inside going out (and up).
//
x266 John Burr : nothing about WTC-6
2024-02-19
John Burr
Maxwell C. Bridges
I'd not known anything about WTC6. I guess you're referring to the explosion that was reported to have taken place on 9/11 causing the damage necessitating demolition later.
x268 Maxwell C. Bridges : explosion of dust clouds from WTC-6
2024-02-09
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. John Burr, I am not necessarily referring to an explosive sound during the tower demolition and all its rumble [but the relatively low-decibel audio signatures are indicative of my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse.]
I am referring to an explosion of dust clouds (about 1:16 in video) where WTC-6 was and that most of us ASSUMED was the dust clouds from the towers hitting the street level and bouncing up.
WTC-6 had a massive crater right out of its middle but didn't go much below street level [because its underground vaults, albeit damaged, were determined by FEMA to have been emptied beforehand.] It seemed to have several neat, straight-up, bore-holes -- which gives a false impression that they were created top-down. [My hobby-horse is several FGNW installed ground floor and aimed upwards their 80% nuclear yield of highly energetic neutrons, bored-up and out the roof from the inside.]
https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc6craterwestair.jpg
DISCLAIMER: The above image goes to Dr. Wood's website, and I am NOT advocating "beams-from-above" as most Woodsian-DEWers do.
Neu nookiedoo, my 9/11 hobby-horse, are devices in the category of DEW and nukes: 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons, as per Dr. Andre Gsponer of reference note #5 in my write-up, below.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
Section "Evidence in WTC Destruction" and its "WTC-6" reference note provides more images and discussion on the WTC-6.
//
x270 Maxwell C. Bridges : wrong assumptions on dust clouds
2024-02-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
2024-02-19
At 1:16 in the following video clip and mostly hid by WTC-7, there is an explosion of dust clouds where WTC-5 and WTC-6 were (other side of WTC-7).
Most of us ASSUMED was the dust clouds from the WTC-2 hitting the street level and bouncing up. This is disproven by looking at WTC-5 and WTC-6 after the event.
https://www.facebook.com/100010886467645/videos/339570812390585/
WTC-6 had a massive crater right out of its middle but didn't go much below street level [because its underground vaults, albeit damaged, were determined by FEMA to have been emptied beforehand.] It seemed to have several neat, straight-up, bore-holes -- which gives a false impression that they were created top-down. [My hobby-horse is several FGNW installed ground floor and aimed upwards their 80% nuclear yield of highly energetic neutrons, bored-up and out the roof from the inside.]
https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc6craterwestair.jpg
DISCLAIMER: The above image goes to Dr. Wood's website, and I am NOT advocating "beams-from-above" as most Woodsian-DEWers do.
Neu nookiedoo, my 9/11 hobby-horse, are devices in the category of DEW and nukes: 9/11 FGNW exotic nuclear weapons, as per Dr. Andre Gsponer of reference note #5 in my write-up, below.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
Section "Evidence in WTC Destruction" and its "WTC-6" reference note provides more images and discussion on the WTC-6.
//
x272 Ross Migrating Bird : melted wall panel facade steel
2024-03-22
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html?showComment=1711138766882#c4609301040877274863
Max ,,hi it's Ross Migrating Bird....
These FGNW's may well have been used based on my observations while in NYC in the neighborhood. However, my ideas about frame electrification and thermite loaded box columns at impact zone floors..along with an inherently onsite testable method lead me to think the FGNW's were used to take out the footings..and not for the esstential floor by floor elimination of the concrete and steel floor construction...Further, steel does bend when cold though those examples in the rubble should and can be verified as possible (or not )..maybe some day I'll get around to some calcs therein.
Re melted wall panel facade steel..I bet those were portions filled with NT around the impact zone for presoftening to allow initial movement of the building tops above impact zones..
x274 Maxwell C. Bridges : inherently onsite testable method
2024-03-22
Dear Mr. Ross Migrating Bird,
Thank you for objectivity already exhibited by having listened to my zoom presentation and read the FGNW premise above.
You wrote: "my ideas about frame electrification and thermite loaded box columns at impact zone floors..."
This is the first I learn on your ideas. Are they written up anywhere?
Assuming the validity of your premise for a moment, they could do whatever they wanted at the impact zone to fake people out. It isn't mutually exclusive with FGNW.
However, your premise -- what little I know about it -- does have a few weaknesses. Thermite is an incidiary, so by itself doesn't meet the brisance observed in the destruction. What would be the purpose of thermite at the impact zone? Are you talking hollow box columns of the wall assemblies, or of the inner core? Mixing your thermite with something brisant (a) makes the detonation louder and (b) gives the bomb-sniffing dogs something to trigger them. [The dogs only had a few business days off just prior to 9/11.]
You wrote: "... along with an inherently onsite testable method..."
Out of context and with me not knowing your premise, that passage is meaningless mumble-jumble trying to serve as hypnotic suggestion.
"Onsite testable method"? Two groups measured Uraniums and its decay elements (signature of fission), another measured tritium (signature of fusion), and another measured continually regenerated fine metal particles in the air many weeks after 9/11. Multiple-FGNW with some nuclear fizzle.
You continued: [your premise plus "onsite testable method"] "lead me to think the FGNW's were used to take out the footings..and not for the esstential floor by floor elimination of the concrete and steel floor construction."
I don't know why you arbitrarily limit the use of exotic FGNW to just taking out the footing. Further, the elimination of the concrete and steel floor construction -- video evidence -- was not floor-by-floor. 10-20 floors were eliminated at a time above the detontation level (where squibs appeared).
The audio signature does not favor your premise of thermite; the logistics does not favor your premise; the risk of detection does not favor your premise; the reports do not favor your premise.
You wrote: "Further, steel does bend when cold..."
Yes, depends on thickness and if done in properly; improperly will leave tell-tale stress marks (micro-fractures) if not outright breakages. This is what was expected. The anomaly of the 9/11 arches/sags, horseshoes, etc. is the smoothness of the bend, as if accomplished by a blast-furnace. Or as if the proximity to the detonation point, or being grazed by the outer reaches of the cone of highly energetic neutrons, were sufficient to volume heat the steel instantly to a high temperature that makes it pliable.
// mcb
Part 11: FGNW Discussions with 911 Revisionist, Norman Swanepoel
x276 911 Revision (Norman) : looked into your research and it just does not explain the massive amount of anomalies at the WTC complex
2024-02-25
911 Revision
Hi Max
As you know - I've looked into your research and it just does not explain the massive amount of anomalies at the WTC complex...
So we really don't have much to discuss...
If you are so sure of your evidence - take it to NIST, file your RFC and let's see how far you come.
Dr Wood's evidence is irrefutable.
x278 Maxwell C. Bridges : have not looked at my research
2024-02-26
Dear Mr. 9/11 Revisionist,
I actually don't know your gender. Your substack had some posting containing a video, supposedly of your activism or participation, and it was worded/shown in a manner that implied you were a female. Being female wouldn't prevent you from posting as "Norman Swanepoel" on Facebook. But Mr. Laratonda called you "Norman" and your deep voice might indicate otherwise.
You have not looked at my research. How do I know this? Because I use evidence directly from Dr. Wood's website and from your substack. Had you reviewed my work, those could have been things that you acknowledged as being valid and good. Reference note 22 calls out Dr. Wood's work directly. I thank you for the images I've re-used in the WTC destruction section.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
What is there to discuss? While Dr. Wood's work does contain lots of anomalies, she does not provide an explanation for them.
"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened."~Dr. Wood.
If you were truly so knowledgeable about Dr. Wood's work, you'd know and acknowledge these major weaknesses:
- Dr. Wood connects no dots and draws no conclusions, a supposed selling point by many of Woodsian-DEWers. Except, if there's no conclusions, then she's not an end-station and shouldn't be promoted here and everywhere as if she were an end-station and complete.
- Dr. Wood did a shitty job of research into DEW. Yes, active denial systems, ABL, and even beams from space are real things, but the frequencies conducive for efficient energy transfer and frequencies conducive for transmission through the atmosphere are two different spectral ranges [you got played by her omission]. Further, the observed destruction of the towers was not tippy-top-down as suggested by "beams from above." Destruction originated from within; it is on video. Dr. Wood never considered mounting her DEW device on the insides, which could have solved issues of optics through the atmosphere and having a huge power source far away. The fact that Dr. Wood let DEW get framed as supposedly exclusively "beams from above" or "beams from a distance" -- and not ever as "beams originating from within and going up" (with nuclear energy sources) --, these are pretty telling omissions.
- Dr. Wood did a shitty job of research into nuclear means. At the energy levels observed, Dr. Wood can't power here "beams from above" with anything real world, except nuclear means. But if you're going to have a nuclear source far away to transfer energy a distance through the leaky atmosphere, why couldn't that nuclear device be right at the location of the destruction and solve both of those energy transmission issues?
- Dr. Wood's points to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 and implies for her duped useful idiot followers that the WTC-4 missing main edifice, the WTC-5 bore-holes, and the WTC-6 crater came from DEW from above. She doesn't consider devices on the inside, aimed upwards, and boring their holes from ground floor going up and out the roof. The vaults under WTC-4 and WTC-6 are the reasons why the destruction wasn't "outside top going down" but "inside bottom going up", because how would an energy beam originating from the outside top know when to stop in order to more or less preserve their underground vaults? It wouldn't. But devices at the ground floor and aimed upwards already solve that problem.
You write: "Dr Wood's evidence is irrefutable."
I agree. Which is why I acknowledge and use her evidence, and can explain it with real-world devices.
We can agree that acknowledging Dr. Wood's evidence is critical for any 9/11 theory to be valid. As fate would have it, my 9/11 theory addresses that evidence, even when Dr. Wood herself does not [because her role was to present evidence, not have a valid explanation for it.]
My FGNW work stands on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work and takes it to the next level.
If you are sincere about your 9/11 endeavors, you'll be able to acknowledge the major weaknesses of Dr. Wood's work and be open-minded to consider alternative theories that build on her work, solve her work's weaknesses, and advance the 9/11 discussion.
As a Woodsian-DEWer, you have major issues with your premise. See the bullet-points above. If your premise is not an end-station and was never considered an end-station even by Dr. Wood herself, you'll flag your reputation with any effort on your part to take discussion "backwards" to her work when FGNW already "advanced" the discussion forward.
Alas, I had discussions with you on Facebook; you ran away and blocked me. I had discussions with you on substack; you deleted my contributions and blocked me on substack. Your copy-and-paste spamming participation on McKee's substack has been less than genuine. These don't bode well for your credibility.
I do hope that you attend my presentation on March 21, 2024. I do hope that you are sincere enough to EVOLVE your 9/11 understanding.
// mcb
x280 911 Revision (Norman) : condescending tone proves you're a disingenuous troll
2024-02-27
Maxwell
Your condescending tone in the opening of your email, just proves that you're a disingenuous troll and not worth my time.
We have interacted more than once and your research lacks covering numerous anomalies that Dr Wood discusses in her two court cases and her book, Where did the towers go, and it is provable that no kinetic or thermal device was in use for the destruction of the towers.
We have nothing more to discuss.
I eagerly await your RFC to NIST and your subsequent suit against the 23 NIST subcontractors for science fraud.
Maybe you, Leon Olsen, Jim Fetzer, Heinz Pommer, Lawrence Fine and that Russian dude can pool your resources together to get it done.
You're just 17 years late to the party.
In the search of 9/11 Accountability
9/11 Revisionist
+++
x282 Maxwell C. Bridges : copy-and-paste from some other discussion
2024-02-27
Dear Mr. 911 Revision,
Your reply to my valid criticism of Dr. Wood's work has fewer characters than three (3) tweets on X. Worse, your reply is copy-and-paste from some other discussion and doesn't relate to this one at all.
Case in point, you wrote: "it is provable that no kinetic or thermal device was in use for the destruction of the towers."
Exactly. Had you read my premise, you'd know that FGNW is in the category of DEW and isn't "kinetic or thermal". FAIL!!! RTFM, loser!
You wrote: "Your condescending tone in the opening of your email, just proves that you're a disingenuous troll and not worth my time."
You make a claim, you defend the claim. How does a condescending tone prove a disingenuous intent, or prove me being a troll, or prove that it is not worth your time? Looks more like your feelings are butt-hurt because you're defending Woodsian-DEW that isn't an end-station.
You wrote: "[Y]our research lacks covering numerous anomalies that Dr Wood."
You make the claim, you defend the claim. I'll make it easy on you. Identify first the many anomalies from Dr. Wood (and your substack) that are already in my premise. Then you'll know for sure which anomalies I might have missed. Be careful, because my FGNW premise (being in the category of DEW) might just reach out and snag your newly identified anomalies and claim it as its own.
You wrote: "I eagerly await your RFC to NIST and your subsequent suit against the 23 NIST subcontractors for science fraud."
Division of labor. As has already been written in Facebook and substack exchanges, "RFC to NIST" is your hobby-horse, not mine. My hobby-horse is to plant accurate and truthful seeds. It is up to others to water those seeds to a "RFC to NIST". Don't be trying to pawn your work onto me.
You wrote: " Maybe you, Leon Olsen, Jim Fetzer, Heinz Pommer, Lawrence Fine and that Russian dude can pool your resources together to get it done."
- I debunk "that Russian dude".(Mr. Dimitri K.?) The videos of destruction do not support his contention of single under-ground nukes per tower.
- I have had exchanges with Mr. Heinz Pommer and have even acquired nuggets of truth from his work (e.g., camera scintillation), which by the way Dr. Wood never addresses. However, because Mr. Pommer can't be convinced to consider multiple devices per tower, and like Dimitri thinks it was a single device deep-under-ground for each tower, his conclusions are debunked for not matching or being able to explain observable evidence.
- I have had exchanges with Mr. Lawrence Fine. My main issue with him is that he tries to conflate the deep underground geological formation under the WTC-4 as being evidence of nuclear involvement. Any alleged devices there can account for neither tower. And given that no evidence at street level (of the plaza raising up and sinking) exists to suggest such an underground event, given that the WTC-4 had gold vaults they were in the process of looting (that further undermines premises that suggest a nuclear device), given that the geological formation was known about for years (just not its true depth and extent), and given that Mr. Fine can't be convinced of the validity of these counter-arguments, he too peddles disinformation.
- I have had exchanges with Dr. James Fetzer. He's come around in recent years to a nuclear premise, but can't be bothered to express correctly how the energy would be exhibited or the devices planted. Dr. Fetzer is a clearing house for conspiracy theory, because it is how he supplements his retirement income. Therefore, he is unwilling to legitimately debunk various disinfo premises, nor even acknowledge weaknesses to some of his claims (in particular NPT@WTC).
- I do not know Leon Olsen or what they might be famous for.
From my perspective, though, each of the named individuals (whom I know) is peddling disinformation and (like you and other Woodsian-DEWers) won't admit to weaknesses and failings in their premises that really ought to get them changing their opinions.
Whether or not you exhibited a "condescending tone." in your re-tweeting here, your actions reflect better you being a disingenuous troll. How so? Did you address any of the bullet points about weaknesses in Dr. Wood's work? No, you did not. You try to deflect the discussion with your butt-hurt emotions arising from an alleged "condescending tone." Woo-hoo! FAIL. You lose.
You wrote: "We have nothing more to discuss."
I am going to hold you to that promise.
Should you attend my March 21 presentation, you will keep yourself on mute for the whole meeting. If you try to interject backward steps to Woodsian-DEW that isn't an end-station, I will probably present the bullet points from our email exchanges that thoroughly debunks Dr. Wood's work followed by me parroting your words back to you: "We have nothing more to discuss."
I wear your FB and substack blockings as badges of honor. Truly demonstrates how closed-minded you are and not willing improve your understanding behind Dr. Wood's not-an-end-station. Loser.
// mcb
+++
x284 911 Revision (Norman) : to listen to your drivel
2024-03-04
Maxwell
Enjoy your talk. There is no way I'll be waiting for you till 1:30am to listen to your drivel.
I'm still deciding if it will be worth my time to listen to the recording.
x286 Maxwell C. Bridges : regular sleep hours is so important to your health
2024-03-04
Dear Mr. 911 Revision,
Thank you for that excellent news! A most wise decision on your part, not just because keeping regular sleep hours is so important to your health and staying awake & attentive at 1:30 in the morning would most certainly be a challenge that I too would avoid.
It is just as well that you won't be participating. With or without you, I'll hold discussion off until the end, so it'd be even later for you.
But given our track record, you would not fair very well in the discussion. Specifically, you already know that FGNW is next-level Woodsian-DEW, the nuclear DEW she wanted to write about but was prevented from. You know that FGNW stands on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's evidence. So were you to pipe it with any BACKSTEPPING form of "... but Dr. Wood drew no conclusions..." or "...
My presentation is so close to Easter that it seems appropriate to turn my presentation into an Easter Egg hunt for 9/11 Truth.
//
+++
x288 911 Revision (Norman) : disingenuous is your way of being demeaning to Dr Wood's work
2024-03-05
Maxwell
What proves that you're disingenuous is your way of being demeaning to Dr Wood's work.
You're just using word suip and repackaging her work to suit your theory.
You are no different than the other disinformation peddlers.
And you're standing alone with your theory.
+++
x290 Maxwell C. Bridges : you can't acknowledge weaknesses in Dr. Wood's work
2024-03-06
Dear Mr. 911 Revision,
You wrote: "What proves that you're disingenuous is your way of being demeaning to Dr Wood's work."
You make the claim; you defend the claim. Please provide the evidence and quotes of me "demeaning Dr. Wood's work." If I identified errors in Dr. Wood's work, please explain how they aren't errors.
What proves that you're disingenuous is that you can't acknowledge weaknesses in Dr. Wood's work, such as the main one "she connects no dots and draws no conclusions." You're not willing to evolve your understanding even when Dr. Wood's "non-conclusions" are dangled repeatedly in your face.
You wrote: "You're just using word suip and repackaging her work to suit your theory."
Don't know what "suip" is. Maybe you meant "soup". Regardless, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that I am rescuing nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's work -- that draws no conclusions -- precisely so that I can repackage it to suit my nuclear DEW theory. ADVANCING the discussion, not PARKING the discussion in non-conclusive cul-de-sacs.
You wrote: "You are no different than the other disinformation peddlers."
I legitimately debunk the disinformation from the other disinfo peddlers, including you. You, on the other hand, have not identified a single specific factoid from my premise, let alone one that is in error.
You're about |<--this-->| far from being legitimately outed as a ChatGPT bot.
You wrote: "And you're standing alone with your theory."
And therein you've identified how you are a disinfo peddler. Given the fact that Dr. Wood draws no conclusions, if you were sincere and faithful to her collection of evidence, you would be on the lookout for the premises that stand on the shoulders of her evidence collection and advance the discussion. You would recognize the validity of the FGNW premise being in the category of DEW and having energy to spare. Were you objective and sincere, you'd either legitimately debunk FGNW or start singing its praises as a demonstration that you are capable of evolution. You would be my ally.
But this isn't what you do. Any advancement that FGNW makes on Dr. Wood's collection of evidence, your brain-dead circuits can't even acknowledge as you try to backward step thinking to Dr. Wood and her non-conclusions.
I pick up your disingenuous assessment of me from the floor, restring it into my bow, and let it sail back at you.
// mcb
+++
x292 911 Revision (Norman) : Utter crap
2024-03-08
Maxwell
You posit extreme heat.
Utter crap.
All the paper did not burn up... auto ignite.
Further the absence of charring on the steel column remnants were not charred. The centerpiece of the GWBUSH library at SMU in Dallas, as an easy visit and inspection you can go do.
The visual signature of the demolition waves for the Towers is almost a gentle billowing down in a mushroom shape.
There was no visible representation of cone shaped explosions upward.
Any "nuclear explosion" would have violent effects emanating at hypersonic speeds, not any of that was seen.
Your declaration without any evidence that WTC2 caused the destruction of WTC4 is WickedPedia bullshit, which I discuss in my presentation against Gene's feeble attempt to postulate thermite above the use of a COLD DEW.
You hardly touch on a myriad of other anomalies.
Need I go on?
Now feel free to run along.
As before - I went through your website and it's lacking any credibility - You fall in the same category as Fetzer and co.
+++
x294 Maxwell C. Bridges : absorbs your evidence and claims it as its own
2024-03-08
Dear Mr. 911 Revision,
Attached is an early Easter present for you, given that you'll be unavailable 1:30 am your time when my actual presentation happens on March 21 (4:30 pm EST). Take note of the images, say, for WTC-4, and give yourself a pat on the back and be filled with my gratitude for they came from your substack. Gracias, amigo!
You should be cheering my premise along, rather than trying to belittle it.
My FGNW premise absorbs your evidence and claims it as its own, and is much easier to real-world power than your COLD DEW that you don't even postulate into how it'd be installed, configured, powered.
You wrote: "You posit extreme heat. Utter crap. All the paper did not burn up... auto ignite."
Good thing you can improve your knowledge of my premise with the attachment. Learn the meaning of DEW and that output energy has a different form with highly energetic neutrons, like when it easily passes through content and leaves energy behind. If the paper wasn't in DEW's path, would it ignite?
// mcb
+++
x296 911 Revision (Norman) : Subject Schooling Maxwell Bridges & FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
2024-03-25
Subject Schooling Maxwell Bridges & FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
My comment to my team
Thank you for addressing the disinfo agents like architects for an engineered truth, Chandler and Coste... At least there we have something in common.
But your exotic nuclear weapon theory has MAJOR shortcomings and only partial evidence Dr Wood presents is discussed, again showing you're a distraction - Full breakdown coming soon.
Gents and ladies
Get the popcorn ready for another co-opter of Dr Wood’s talking points / terms…
Boston 911 Truth speaks with Maxwell Bridges - FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
Full presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
He starts talking about Dr Wood at the 58 minute mark up to 1h 10 minutes.
Chris making Maxwell sweat in the Q&A: https://youtu.be/-0XwWKQBN4Q
You’ll also find that he keeps talking about “melted” this and “melted” that – He refers to heat numerous times, and makes assumptions that the warping of metal must be due to heat during the whole presentation.
He also subtly and directly attacks Dr Wood’s work and tries to make the point because no one has taken him on, he wins by default. What a laugh.
Dr Wood’s work “is incomplete” as he states, but Dr Wood discusses where the evidence she presents points to. Some sort of COLD DEW tech – It wasn’t about her proving what the operator had for breakfast and the people who could tell us what he had for breakfast, were the companies she took to court.
Maxwell has yet to file a RFC to NIST or sue the NIST subcontractors for science fraud.
I’m in the process of breaking up the presentation where he discusses Dr Wood in order to point out his shortcomings and will be doing a little edit here and there.
In the search for 9/11 accountability
Preview YouTube video Boston 911 Truth speaks with Maxwell Bridges (3 21 2024)
x298 Maxwell C. Bridges : not a single MAJOR shortcoming
2024-03-25
Dear Mr. 9/11 Revision,
You had both my write-up (on my blog) and my presentation (sent via email) in advance, and this is all you can come up with?!! Did you acknowledge any of the valid criticisms of Dr. Wood's work?
You wrote: "... exotic nuclear weapon theory has MAJOR shortcomings."
Yet you couldn't be bothered to give details on any single alleged "MAJOR shortcoming" of my theory?!!! Without details, your are just lying, poorly executing hypnotic suggestion, and proving you didn't read it.
If these weren't already clues to your disingenuous nature, you have me blocked on both substack and Facebook, such is your hesitation to defend Dr. Wood's work publicly and legitimately. [I know the book better than you do; you've already lost.]
For all of your belly-aching about Dr. Wood only presenting evidence, you're too much of a deceitful agent to recognize its limits -- not an end-station -- and to compensate with a valid theory that addresses said evidence. You're all magician-hand-wavy: "Dr. Wood hinted at cold fusion, but provided no references to anything even half-way close to being real-world actionable."
And when a theory is presented that does address Dr. Wood's evidence to a larger degree than even the series of dangling-innuendo theories only half-assed mentioned in her book, you can't get behind it, because you are a disinfo agent.
Then like the agent Chat-GPT bot that you are, you harp yet again: "file a RFC to NIST or sue the NIST subcontractors for science fraud."
Asshole, "RFC to NIST and suing of NIST subcontractors" is your hobby-horse, not mine. How many times and in how many places (my blog to Emmanual Goldstein & Roger Gloux; Facebook to Norman Swanepoel; substack & McKee to 9/11 Revisionist) has this been brought up? It was never a valid argument against my theory or my efforts.
Because "RFC to NIST and suing of NIST subcontractors" is your "thang", allow some advice that before you do engage in such efforts, you better have a good idea on what is the correct theory as the primary mechanism of destruction, how it is positioned, and how it is powered. For Dr. Wood, it was actually a good thing that a Bush cousin who was judge threw out her case "for not having standing" to be able to make such a complaint, but it would have been even worse when it was discovered that her vague, dangling innuendo of a theory (beams-from-above, right?) isn't powered with anything real world, has DEW optics issues, and does not match the destruction (of the towers or WTC-4, 5, 6, and 7).
I don't have standing either, so only Chat-GPT bot faulty algorithms can possibly explain why you keep brining it up as if it were a "thang" and important in the discussion.
Unblock me on substack, and let's further this conversation in public.
I will not be holding my breath. When I tried to engage you in rational discourse and you noticed you had no valid rebuttal, you deleted my comments from your substack and then blocked me from following (let alone commenting there). [This is after you ran away on Facebook.] Already virtue-signals the low level of your sincerity and earnestness.
// mcb
+++
x300 911 Revision (Norman) : debunking of the 9/11 truther talking head celebrities
2024-03-26
Maxwell
Thank you once again for the debunking of the 9/11 truther talking head celebrities, those clips will come in handy as I keep churning out videos - Send me your banking details and I'll send you some royalties.
Why should I even waste my energy and my time to write a rebuttal to your points, as you were contradicting yourself every 30 seconds?
Your neuro-linguistic techniques are well executed, I must say, those 3 degrees of higher education come in handy for your muddle up.
Something I did notice though, you hardly went after Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth - So the question beckons - Are you all part of the same Masonic lodge?
You harp on where Dr Wood's DEW was, what the operator had for breakfast and all of that distraction points, when the conclusive body of evidence, most of which your presentation doesn't even touch on, is included in Dr Wood's book (questions around the evidence is well explained in her FAQ page on the website) and that evidence is what she then used to sue the US government. But you know that already, don't you. So, your beam from above, strawman is mute - stop Parroting Steven E. Jones with the space beam angle.
It's a shame you couldn't get Chandler and Coste to help you debunk Dr Wood in 2012 when your buddy Craig wrote his article: "The Judy Wood enigma: A Discussion - A polarizing figure in 9/11research". You seem rather butthurt about it, but thanx for pointing it out, the slide will come in handy, thank you as it will be put to great use.
I'll not have my time wasted by you, as that is exactly what you are - An energy vampire - https://youtu.be/_Dk1YGQjBo8 and https://youtu.be/4A7BLMA1LIw and thus I'll not entertain you in my substack comments or on my FB...
I'll remind you again - You've been working on the speculative FGNW for close to 20 years right? Then by now you should be able to draft a RFC to NIST, but yet you seem to be following the same route as Gage and co when they did not even mention thermite or molten metal in their submissions to NIST. So, that is already a tell on you not believing in your work either.
The same goes for the other nuke proponents like Fetzer and Pommer...
I look forward to putting some videos together, using your slides and more in the coming articles and who knows, maybe even my own presentations.
Thank you once again for the added ammo against truth muddlers like yourself.
Regards
Norman aka 9/11 Revisionist
3 Attachments • Scanned by Gmail
Preview YouTube video Colin Robinson, Energy Vampire - What we do in the Shadows - S01E01
Preview YouTube video Energy Vampire Colin Robinson drains Energy in the Internet | What we do in the Shadows - S02E07
+++
x302 Maxwell C. Bridges : otherwise all can plainly see hypnotic suggestion
2024-03-26
Dear Mr. Norman,
You made a valid criticism of my presentation: " Something I did notice though, you hardly went after Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth - So the question beckons - Are you all part of the same Masonic lodge?"
That is correct. Owing to time constraints, Mr. Gage was among the many 9/11 celebrities that I did not go after specifically. However, I did have at least two areas where AE9/11Truth was dinged, which by extension puts him as former leader of AE9/11Truth in the path of the figurative nuclear fallout of my thesis.
I doubt Mr. Gage is a Mason, and certainly not in a lodge near me. So we are not part of the same Masonic Lodge.
You wrote: "Why should I even waste my energy and my time to write a rebuttal to your points, as you were contradicting yourself every 30 seconds?"
The reason why you should devote your energy and time to write a rebuttal to my points is that otherwise, all can plainly see your hypnotic suggestion. If, as you say, I was contradicting myself every 30 seconds, you should re-watch and keep a tally of the specific contradictions and bring them to my attention. Else, I'll have no hope of changing and evolving if my errors aren't exposed.
Your Chat-GPT algorithms output this gem:
"You harp on where Dr Wood's DEW was, what the operator had for breakfast and all of that distraction points, when the conclusive body of evidence, most of which your presentation doesn't even touch on, is included in Dr Wood's book (questions around the evidence is well explained in her FAQ page on the website) and that evidence is what she then used to sue the US government. But you know that already, don't you. So, your beam from above, strawman is mute - stop Parroting Steven E. Jones with the space beam angle."
The questions neither Dr. Wood nor her disinfo brain-dead minions can answer are: What powered the DEW? What did the DEW output? Where were the DEW with respect to each and every WTC building?
These aren't distraction points. They are fundamental.
Indeed, the beams-from-above narrative is far-fetched (in terms of being applicable to the observed distruction on 9/11), but (a) Dr. Wood did not vigorously counter this mal-framing of her premise, and (b) Dr. Wood never speculated into "beams-from-within" either, as in "DEW devices planted within the buildings."
You wrote: " I'll remind you again - You've been working on the speculative FGNW for close to 20 years right?"
No. Over that 20 years, I let myself get duped by other premises: nukes, chemical explosives, nano-thermite, and Woodsidan-DEW. It's been closer to a decade on speculative FGNW.
You wrote: "Then by now you should be able to draft a RFC to NIST,..."
Why? Why don't you? My premise uses all of the relevant evidence from Dr. Wood's book without the dangling innuendo and the piss-poor "research" into both DEW and nuclear means. Should be easy for you to write up the FGNW RFC to NIST.
You wrote: "... but yet you seem to be following the same route as Gage and co when they did not even mention thermite or molten metal in their submissions to NIST."
I was not aware of their submission to NIST.
You wrote: "So, that is already a tell on you not believing in your work either."
Provide me the URL from NIST where guidelines for RFC are available and where submissions can be made. Prove you aren't a chat-GPT bot. Your hobby-horse? You pony-up. Prove that this is even a real thing. Then we'll see what I do.
// mcb
+++
x304 911 Revision (Norman) : You need not know my surname
2024-04-02
Subject: Re: FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
Maxwell, just to make it easier, I’ll reply to each one of your points, as per your email…
Dear Mr. Norman,
-N My name is Norman (You need not know my surname)
You made a valid criticism of my presentation: " Something I did notice though, you hardly went after Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth - So the question beckons - Are you all part of the same Masonic lodge?"
That is correct. Owing to time constraints, Mr. Gage was among the many 9/11 celebrities that I did not go after specifically. However, I did have at least two areas where AE9/11Truth was dinged, which by extension puts him as a former leader of AE9/11Truth in the path of the figurative nuclear fallout of my thesis.
I doubt Mr. Gage is a Mason, and certainly not in a lodge near me. So we are not part of the same Masonic Lodge.
-N He is the main “celebrity” all of the so called “9/11 truthers” tend to see as their all knowing god, including on who's platform you were hosted for your talk, thus your limited discussion of architects for an engineered truth and Gage, is rather telling – After all, the logo pretty much is a Masonic logo – Thus, your unwillingness to take the organisation and Richard Gage on again, raises suspicion on your motives against Dr Wood.
-N Could that be your “tell” as just another added layer of the cover up from Dr Wood’s work? I think so.
You wrote: "Why should I even waste my energy and my time to write a rebuttal to your points, as you were contradicting yourself every 30 seconds?"
The reason why you should devote your energy and time to write a rebuttal to my points is that otherwise, all can plainly see your hypnotic suggestion. If, as you say, I was contradicting myself every 30 seconds, you should re-watch and keep a tally of the specific contradictions and bring them to my attention. Else, I'll have no hope of changing and evolving if my errors aren't exposed.
-N O, there is no hypnotic suggestion.
-N Chris Bergier pretty much exposed you and your FGNW theory as unfounded.
Your Chat-GPT algorithms output this gem:
"You harp on where Dr Wood's DEW was, what the operator had for breakfast and all of that distraction points, when the conclusive body of evidence, most of which your presentation doesn't even touch on, is included in Dr Wood's book (questions around the evidence is well explained in her FAQ page on the website) and that evidence is what she then used to sue the US government. But you know that already, don't you. So, your beam from above, strawman is mute - stop Parroting Steven E. Jones with the space beam angle."
The questions neither Dr. Wood nor her disinfo brain-dead minions can answer are: What powered the DEW? What did the DEW output? Where were the DEW with respect to each and every WTC building?
These aren't distraction points. They are fundamental.
-N O, but Dr Wood knows who to ask – After all they were the defendants of her court case.
-N Pity, you don’t mention them either, just like Gage and co.
Indeed, the beams-from-above narrative is far-fetched (in terms of being applicable to the observed destruction on 9/11), but (a) Dr. Wood did not vigorously counter this mal-framing of her premise, and (b) Dr. Wood never speculated into "beams-from-within" either, as in "DEW devices planted within the buildings."
-N But she did sue the US MIC subcontractors who would have to answer difficult questions, if they were deposed.
You wrote: " I'll remind you again - You've been working on the speculative FGNW for close to 20 years right?"
No. Over that 20 years, I let myself get duped by other premises: nukes, chemical explosives, nano-thermite, and Woodsidan-DEW. It's been closer to a decade on speculative FGNW.
-N Indeed, that’s all you do, is speculate.
-N Dr Wood bases her conclusions on the evidence, the bulk of which you don’t even attempt to address in pushing your nonsensical FGNW.
You wrote: "Then by now you should be able to draft a RFC to NIST,..."
Why? Why don't you? My premise uses all of the relevant evidence from Dr. Wood's book without the dangling innuendo and the piss-poor "research" into both DEW and nuclear means. Should be easy for you to write up the FGNW RFC to NIST.
-N Maybe you should re-read her Qui-Tam case files: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/
-N The work has been done
-N Gage, Fetzer, Pomer and you have no credibility to stand on, you only put forth conspiracy theories, like all of them.
You wrote: "... but yet you seem to be following the same route as Gage and co when they did not even mention thermite or molten metal in their submissions to NIST."
I was not aware of their submission to NIST.
-N WOW, what a researcher you are – Over 20 years wasted, eh?
You wrote: "So, that is already a tell on you not believing in your work either."
Provide me the URL from NIST where guidelines for RFC are available and where submissions can be made. Prove you aren't a chat-GPT bot. Your hobby-horse? You pony-up. Prove that this is even a real thing. Then we'll see what I do.
-N I’m not your secretary – Google is your friend.
// mcb
-N Norman
-N PS: I do hope you take on Ted Walter and co, as I’ll be going after them hard this year and I am saddened that the COWARD, Laratonda also banned you from his safe padded playroom, as you and I do have a lot of things in common, but unfortunately I stick with the evidence of DEW, where you speculate.
x306 Maxwell C. Bridges : hypnotic suggestion fails, because "no, Mr. Chris Bergier did not."
2024-04-02
Dear Mr. Norman,
Thank you for providing me with an easier name to type. Correct, I need not know any other more identifying names about you.
You complain about my recent so-called "non-treatment" of Mr. Gage. "Suffer it to be so now, liitle lamb." With 20+ years of 9/11 Truth studies, I have been playing the long-game as far as he is concerned. He's had plenty of gate-keepers over the years in my sincere attempts to have rational discussions, like when I posted comments to the AE911Truth website, FB pages, or the specific venues from Mr. Gage, such as substack. Indeed, Boston 9/11 Truth and others like to fawn over his 9/11 celebrity status.
Rest assured, I've been taking infrequent shots across Mr. Gage's ship's bow for years. Whether or not he was called out by name, my FGNW premise and my recent presentation are like torpedoes hitting his credibility below the water line. His ship is taking on water, and his future progress will always be susceptible to figurative nuclear fall-out.
You wrote: "After all, the logo (AE911Truth) pretty much is a Masonic logo."
How stupid! Square and compasses are germaine in lots of different professions and don't always mean "masonic."
You wrote: "Chris Bergier pretty much exposed you and your FGNW theory as unfounded."
Your hypnotic suggestion fails, because "no, he did not." Worse, just because he dropped some dangling innuendo (like the pages of a Bible with something seemingly molten dripped upon it), doesn't mean he has an actionable, scalable, powerable, mechanism of destruction that searching the (public) nuclear information repositories would reveal... With the exception of FGNW, that you Woodsian-DEWers are too dense to recognize address the relevant evidence from Dr. Wood's book/website.
All Mr. Bergier and you can do is distract with attempts to move discussion backwards to the Woodsian-DEW limited hangout cul-de-sac. You have no actionable premises that uses that evidence and advances the discussion, while you piss on the FGNW in the category of DEW that does.
I wrote: 'Dr. Wood never speculated into "beams-from-within" either, as in "DEW devices planted within the buildings."'
You replied: "But she did sue the US MIC subcontractors who would have to answer difficult questions, if they were deposed."
What you wrote has zero relevance to the fact that Dr. Wood did a crappy job of research by not considering "DEW from within". In fact, it was so crappy along with her crappy nuclear research, they become glaring Easter Eggs and semaphores-for-9/11-Truth.that prove: "Dr. Wood connected no dots and drew no conclusions; it is all about the evidence."
I wrote: "Provide me the URL from NIST where guidelines for RFC are available and where submissions can be made. Prove you aren't a chat-GPT bot. Your hobby-horse? You pony-up. Prove that this is even a real thing. Then we'll see what I do."
You replied: "I’m not your secretary – Google is your friend."
Now that's both a chat-GPT fail as well as an exposure of your insincerity as you try to gate-keep "file the RFC to NIST".
I did use Google; I did search the NIST website. I didn't find anything where NIST gives RFC guidelines or offers a web form to submit my filing. And you probably didn't find it either (mostly because you didn't look).
Thus, until appropriate URLs are coughed up by you to validate that "filing an RFC to NIST" is a real thing and possible with information on what is expected, no obligation is imposed upon me to devote time and effort to create some ill-defined RFC work for my 9/11 theory. Zero.
Because "filing an RFC with NIST" has been your thing for years, if you don't provide appropriate URLs, you forfeit the right to ever again mention "RFC to NIST" again in discussion, and should you attempt such, your nose will be rubbed in your disingenuous effort and intentions.
You wrote: "I do hope you take on Ted Walter and co, as I’ll be going after them hard this year..."
Saturday night, I submitted a 2k word version of my premise to his IC911 group, because I was told that its length was the stumbling block. So we'll see what happens.
You wrote: "... and I am saddened that the COWARD, Laratonda also banned you from his safe padded playroom."
I don't consider myself banned. I think the true banishment was aimed at you. Kind of like on Mr. McKee's substack, your efforts tend to be the spamming and flame-baiting variety. Spam, because your postings are copy-and-paste and you don't defend them against valid criticism. [I'm still blocked on your substack.] You've got helpers in the form of Mr. Adam Ruff who are quick to attribute your deceitful actions with my honorable ones. Now Laratonda is doing the same thing.
Indeed, YOU are the controlled opposition. Laratonda and co. know they can't legitimately debunk the FGNW premise, but they can give you just enough rope in engaging me (with bad behavior) -- even in defeat against my premise and argumentation -- that they can justify taking us both out.
You wrote: "... , as you and I do have a lot of things in common,"
No. I'm objective, rational, and sincere; you are not. You tote an agenda, so can never be convinced of any errors in Dr. Judy Wood's work, let alone of the merits of advanced FGNW premises that can address the evidence in Dr. Wood's work.
If you were objective, rational, and sincere, YOU would become the biggest champion of my work, because it takes Dr. Wood's work to the next level.
You wrote: "... but unfortunately I stick with the evidence of DEW, where you speculate"
Lies and deceit all in one sentence fragment.
FGNW is in the category of DEW and addresses all of the relevant evidence with which you claim to stick. What about the evidence of fission in the dust, and fusion in the water samples? Neither Dr. Wood nor you address that. You say that I speculate, when all I really did was research and find Dr. Andre Gsponer. Why didn't Dr. Wood? But to the degree that I speculate -- into the nuclear nature of the devices, their yield, their placement --, neither Dr. Wood nor you speculate into the same for your DEW. What type of energy does it output? Where was it positioned? How was it powered?
If Dr. Wood isn't going to be an end-station, then you can't be promoting it as if it is, while my premise has already taken us two or more stations beyond Dr. Wood and closer to Truth.
It wasn't bad enough that Dr. Wood (2010) never came across Dr. Gsponer, she also never came across Doug Beason, Ph.D : "The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought" from 2005.
At any rate, I'll be returning to Laratonda's group later (when I feel like it), after my Boston 9/11 Truth presentation has marinated awhile.
// mcb
+++
x308 Maxwell C. Bridges : energy vampire
2024-04-02
Dear Norman,
Just a quick addendum. Thank you for the "energy vampire" clips; they explain your presence in 9/11 discussions well.
More importantly, I deleted your comment (from March 25) from my substack. Why? Let me count the ways.
You have me blocked on your substack. [Enough said.]
You don't acknowledge, let alone address, criticism of Dr. Wood's work. [Which is why you block me.]
You are an energy vampire; a distraction with a non-conclusion, non-premise, dangling innuendo.
You are un-objective, irrational, and insincere.
You are brain-dead repetitive.
You don't research or substantiate your statements. [URL for NIST RFC guidelines and submissions?]
Etc.
// mcb
+++
x310 911 Revision (Norman) : nothing but word soup
2024-04-06
Re: FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons - A laugh a minute
Maxwell
Your reply is nothing but word soup. Your FGNW premise is based on speculation, end of story.
You have made no attempt to file a RFC or take NIST to court, nor will you ever, because you know, once you need to defend your speculation in a court of law, you'd be laughed out the door.
Pity, what a waste of 20 years.
You cannot debunk any evidence Dr Wood has presented in her book or her two court cases, nor could any of the people involved in the industry formed the past 14 years, to keep people from looking at and digesting what she presents, because all of you know, when people do, they'll see right through your weak speculations. But thanx for playing.
Norman
x312 Maxwell C. Bridges : bot-algorithms dialed so tight into deceit
2024-04-06
Dear Mr. Norman,
You wrote: "Your reply is nothing but word soup."
At least my soup has nurishing substance in it. Your replies are so bot-ish shallow, they pick up sand and beach refuse.
You wrote: "Your FGNW premise is based on speculation, end of story."
The FGNW has: two different analysis of the dust showing the trace elements of fission whether or not the government reports acknowledge it as such; a separate report on tritium indicating fusion; a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal by a nuclear scientist (Dr. Andre Gsponer) that two of the founders of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood) both coincidentally missed in their literature reviews on nuclear methods; and all of the evidence collected in Dr. Wood's book.
You premise?
I'm sorry, what is your premise again? DEW? Actually, not even that, because "Dr. Wood connects no dots and draws no conclusions." What are the inputs, outputs, and positioning of your "DEW"? If you can't logically envision how your DEW would be implemented and installed, then your premise doesn't even rise to the level of "weak speculation."
Your bot-algorithms are dialed so tight into deceit, you can't even acknowledge and state for the record: "FGNW is in the category of DEW", let alone that it can be more easily powered with real-world nuclear technology, can be easily positioned within the structures, and has dustification energy to spare.
Stated another way, without FGNW standing on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work, the very same work does not rise to the level of even "weak speculation" and exposes its ardent supporters as distractions.
You wrote: "You have made no attempt to file a RFC or take NIST to court..."
You have made no attempt to provide the URLs for the instructions and submittal of said RFC-filing.
You continued: "... nor will you ever, because you know, ..."
Because bots aren't very good at researching, or following links, or providing links to substantiate their position.
You continued: "... once you need to defend your speculation in a court of law, you'd be laughed out the door."
Assuming that the utmost desire of your algorithms is to have me and my premise discredited and "laughed out the door" of a court of law, the least you could do is give me enough rope to hang myself.
Where are those URLs that give NIST instructions for the RFC filing that you not only think is possible, but that Dr. Wood supposedly used? Why aren't you accelerating my demise and discreditation by providing that little bit of online internet leg work to help me really make a public fool of myself?
Help me out here. If your bot subroutines are going to get stuck in endless loops of "filing RFC with NIST", the least they could do (if they were sincere and not acting the distracting clown show) is offer up the instructions.
If you're going to be moving the goal posts -- "your premise ain't nothing if it don't file RFC with NIST" --, the least you could do is provide a tangible goal post for all to see: URL for instructions and submittal of RFC with NIST.
You wrote: "Pity, what a waste of 20 years."
Pity that in the past 20 years, you never recognized that the promoted strengths of Dr. Wood's work -- just the evidence, no connecting of dots, no conclusions -- is also a weakness requiring sincere students of Dr. Wood to continue their research and speculation into viable conclusions.
Pity that in the past decade and a half (since Dr. Wood's book), you did no additional research on your own into either DEW or nuclear means, which would have highlighted how poor a job Dr. Wood actually did in those regards.
Why aren't you championing Dr. Andre Gsponer, instead of Dr. Judy Wood? Major fail.
You wrote: "You cannot debunk any evidence Dr Wood has presented in her book..."
Another bot glitch. *Ding* *Ding* "Hello?!! Anybody home? The lights are on, but no human occupants."
True it is that I do not debunk any evidence Dr. Wood presents in her book. Why?
Because FGNW re-purposes the evidence to make the FGNW case.
Seems kind of stupid for there to be any expectation on my premise to debunk the very evidence that it uses.
Ergo, such reasoning failures outs your bot-ism even more.
You continued: "... or (you cannot debunk) her two court cases, ..."
From my understanding, Dr. Wood had no standing in at least one of her court cases, which she and her lawyers should have known. Technically, she got "laughed out of court" before it got to the point where she would have thoroughly embarrassed herself by not having any real-world, viable, "speculation" into her own shallow and incomplete DEW.
You continued: "... nor could any of the people involved in the industry formed the past 14 years, to keep people from looking at and digesting what she presents,..."
Stop right there. Dr. Judy Wood, as a founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who then with the other founders -- Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. James Fetzer -- went on their separate ways to establish the three-rings of their distraction circus, was part of "the industry formed... to keep people from looking" for the Truth.
Another bot-fail: I'm one of the few who did look at and digest what Dr. Wood presented.
You continued: "... because all of you know, when people do, they'll see right through your weak speculations."
According to your faulty reasoning, when people review Dr. Wood's book, they'll somehow see where her mounds of dangling innuendo, no connection of dots, and no conclusions will somehow lay bare allegedly "weak speculation" that can address the nuggets of truth from her book that even Dr. Wood couldn't do?!!
You wrote: "But thanx for playing."
Another bot slip-up there, projecting your game playing onto me. I'm the sincere one.
Thanks again for the "Energy Vampire" clips that you provided. You prove that "energy vampires" can be automated to really distract.
P.S. Let's have a record zoom meeting on Dr. Wood versus FGNW at a date and time convenient for you (and me). We can invite other Woodsian-DEWers of your choosing, like Chris B., Lawrence Fine, etc. Or how about Dr. Judy Wood herself?
Maybe we could have Mr. Craig McKee or his little buddy Mr. Adam Ruff act as a moderator. Mr. Ruff hates us both equally. He hates you for being a shallow bot-spammer; he hates me for being right.
I'm such a good sport, I've already published and made available my criticisms of Dr. Wood so that you and the other Woodsian-DEWers aren't caught flat-footed and can have valid responses.
// mcb
+++
x314 911 Revision (Norman) : not even going to read your ramblings
2024-04-06
Maxwell
O, dear God - Not even going to read your ramblings...
bye bye.
x316 Maxwell C. Bridges : held to your promise
2024-04-06
Dear Mr. Norman,
Assuming that you held to your promise -- "Not even going to read your ramblings..." -- then it is safe to assume that you didn't read the post-script. Allow me to repeat it.
Let's have a record zoom meeting on Dr. Wood versus FGNW at a date and time convenient for you (and me). We can invite other Woodsian-DEWers of your choosing, like Chris B., Lawrence Fine, etc. Or how about Dr. Judy Wood herself?
Maybe we could have Mr. Craig McKee or his little buddy Mr. Adam Ruff act as a moderator. Mr. Ruff hates us both equally. He hates you for being a shallow bot-spammer; he hates me for being right.
I'm such a good sport, I've already published and made available my criticisms of Dr. Wood so that you and the other Woodsian-DEWers aren't caught flat-footed and can have valid responses.
P.S. Want to know another 9/11 Truther who reacts just like you -- "Not even going to read your ramblings..."? Mr. Adam Ruff. As if that is somehow a valid and convincing argument!
// mcb
x318 911 Revision (Norman) : claims are incorrect and laughable
2024-04-06
Maxwell
I've told you this before - I've worked through what you present on your site and I find it lacking.
There is no reason for me to waste my time on you. Most of your claims are incorrect and laughable.
No RFC, NO suit against NIST or the 23 subcontractors, you don't address at all.
Thank you for playing.
Norman
+++
x320 Maxwell C. Bridges : laughable is that your reply is so generic
2024-04-06
Dear Mr. Norman,
You wrote: "I've told you this before - I've worked through what you present on your site and I find it lacking."
I've told you this before: without any specifics into what might be "lacking", all you are doing is hypnotic suggestion.
You wrote: "There is no reason for me to waste my time on you. Most of your claims are incorrect and laughable."
If "most of my claims are incorrect and laughable", surely your bot algorithms could provide details on some of them, or a few of them, or even one of them. And what about the items from my claim that are correct and not laughable?
What is laughable is that your reply is so generic, it doesn't mention a single specific point of the FGNW premise. Not a single one. Because bots aren't very good about following links, let alone understanding what is at those links and pulling back into the discussion details from those links.
You wrote: "No RFC, NO suit against NIST or the 23 subcontractors, you don't address at all."
So badly do I want to make the RFC suit against NIST, yet you offer no assistance or useful advice in the matter. Where specifically do I get instructions on how to follow the holy-grail of "RFC suit against NIST"? URLs, please.
You wrote: "Thank you for playing."
Wait, what? I've challenged you to a zoom discussion. Play time isn't over yet. Don't run away like you did before, blocking me on Facebook and then again on Substack!
// mcb
x322 911 Revision (Norman) : no incling to talk to you in person
2024-04-06
Maxwell
I have no incling to talk to you in person.
You're just the latest in a lengthening line of "nukers" - Ed Ward, Jeff Prager, Heinz Pomner and others, even if your word soup tries and link it to DEW
I'm not even going to give you the airtime to have a podcast to debunk you.
Have to run - I have a podcast running.
Norman
PS: Ok, I must admit, you now managed to tickle my curiosity with the email I ignored - Again, you're wrong - Dr Wood was NEVER a founder of "Scholars for 9/11 truth"
- You failed again, just like not knowing architects for an engineered truth's RFC did not mention thermite or molten metal.
x324 Maxwell C. Bridges : which "9/11 Revisionist" team member can think quickest
2024-04-06
Dear Mr. Norman,
You wrote: "I have no incling to talk to you in person."
I don't blame you. It isn't a question of which "9/11 Revisionist" team member can think quickest on their feet. It is more a question of who can legitimately research the FGNW premise and come to the discussion prepared with specifics and legitimate debunking. Worse, the 9/11 Revisionist team already knows the weaknesses in Dr. Wood's work that will be discussed, which in turn will expose an inability to acknowledge such and subsequently dings credibility all around.
We already know that your chat-GPT teammate isn't up to the task.
You wrote: "You're just the latest in a lengthening line of 'nukers' - Ed Ward, Jeff Prager, Heinz Pomner and others, even if your word soup tries and link it to DEW."
Maybe. Except that I rescued nuggets of truth from my predecessors, stand on Dr. Wood's evidence, and bring Dr. Andre Gsponer to light.
You wrote: "I'm not even going to give you the airtime to have a podcast to debunk you."
Just like you delete my comments on substack, block me on substack, and disappeared on Facebook. Not very confident that you can win a debate anywhere, are you?
If you could debunk my FGNW premise, you would have already -- legitimately and thoroughly. [And if you could, I'd be cheering you on and applauding points made against FGNW.] Instead, you opt for "hypnotically", thinking that is sufficient. Giving FGNW the win by default.
You wrote: "Dr Wood was NEVER a founder of 'Scholars for 9/11 truth.'"
I stand corrected. Wikipedia says it was just Dr. Jones and Dr. Fetzer:
"However, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer -- such as the use of directed energy weapons or miniature nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers — were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule."
Ironic how my FGNW premise is sufficiently supported by evidence.
// mcb
x326 911 Revision (Norman) : weakest link game over
2024-04-06
Maxwell
You're the weakest link.
Game over.
x328 Maxwell C. Bridges : a single-point of failure in the present
2024-04-06
Dear Mr. Norman,
You wrote: "You're the weakest link."
Being the lone-nut championing FGNW, I am a single-point of failure in the present. But that isn't the same as being "the weakest link." In fact, I have every confidence that when this "single-point of failure" gets appropriately linked, its strength relative to the other links in the chain won't matter.
You wrote: "Game over."
Good.
Here's something that's not a game. I just emailed Mr. McKee and Mr. Ruff to ask them to moderate a zoom debate: DEW versus FGNW.
What a shame that I'll have to announce to the vast 9/11 Truther audience at the beginning of the zoom debate that 9/11 Revisionist (Norman) chickened out, and can't defend Woodsian-DEW premises. So the DEW side will thus be represented by other, publicly vocal, Woodsian-DEWers, but probably not just lesser in their grasp but also more maluable to change their opinions by more convincing analysis. The ultimate win in debate is when the opponent changes their opinion, right?
Before any words are spoken, the defection from DEW towards FGNW (which is still DEW) is predicted for the truly open-minded and objective.
FGNW wins in all alternate universes. Game over.
// mcb
+++
x330 911 Revision (Norman) : O, sweetie... You will nEVER find me giving you airtime...
2024-04-06
Maxwell
O, sweetie...
Here is my answer to your "vast 9/11 Truther audience" at the beginning of the zoom debate, which I WILL NOT attend because I'm laughing at all of you that are involved in this farce.
Before you start puking your bullshit, you'll show this exchange in full and the links to the articles, otherwise it proves you are a COWARD!
You running to Mr. McKee that has been given 12 years to "debunk" Dr Wood's evidence, and failed, when he wrote this failure - https://truthandshadows.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/
And even you helped confirm her evidence, which even you cannot refute - https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-and-the-debunking-olympics
Again, it just proves, YOU and your buddies, Mr. McKee and Mr. Ruff are the weakest link.
Make your statements and false points - Sweetie - I have the emails... Screenshot and all...
Thank you for entertaining me...
You will nEVER find me giving you airtime...
Norman
PS: Must be tough having a dumb African schooling you....
+++
x332 Maxwell C. Bridges : puking bullshit
2024-04-06
Dear Mr. Norman,
Among other things, you wrote: "Mr. McKee that has been given 12 years to 'debunk' Dr Wood's evidence, and failed, when he wrote this failure" https://truthandshadows.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/
Mr. McKee has been given almost the same amount of time to debunk nuclear involvement, and failed, for he hasn't even bothered to write anything at all. Double failure, I guess.
You continued with: "And even you helped confirm her evidence, which even you cannot refute"
https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-and-the-debunking-olympics
The common denominator between those two articles and this email discussion we're having here is: me, in those articles and their discussion under the pseudonym "Señ¯² El Once", whose words are re-purposed on my blog. [Did your reference unknowingly pawn you?]
You wrote (repeated): "..., which even you cannot refute"
DOUBLE-FOUL ON THE PLAY. [A] I am Señor El Once; I take credit for his words. Other than evolution, I don't refute them. [B] It is technically impossible for me to "refute" or "otherwise" at the substack link you provided, because you have me blocked.
You wrote: "... the zoom debate, which I WILL NOT attend..."
I'll not hold against you your reluctance for a zoom debate.
But that doesn't seem to be the only place where you do NOT want to debate.
Clearly, blocking me on substack doesn't send the message that you'd like a fair and open debate. [You cut Facebook connections.] And here in e-mail, you're all "generic and overview hypnosis" and not a "specific and (briefly) detailed analysis." Your participation on McKee's substack is copy-and-paste spamming without any on-topic relevance to the articles or discussion thread. [Your purpose there, it seems, to be a Woodsian-DEW energy vampire to spam engage others into bad behavior against your rudeness, that in turn gets all involved parties deleted and kicked out of the discussion. A distraction.]
You wrote: "Again, it just proves,..."
There was no previous instance where you proved anything. Therefore, the only "again" about it is that you didn't prove anything this time either... except your ability to spew hypnotic spells.
You wrote: "YOU and your buddies, Mr. McKee and Mr. Ruff..."
Wait a second. Mr. Ruff hates me more than any other 9/11 Truther, you included. Why?
Because I'm right (w.r.t. FGNW), articulate, rational, reasoned, logical, researched, and used written-Jujitzu to pawn his credibility several times. *tear in my eye* He doesn't allow me to Facebook friend him; he too has me blocked on substack; he calls me out by name and associates your disinfo distractions with me. Boo-hoo.
As for Mr. McKee being my buddy? Ha! You obviously haven't read my blog where I document my whining and pleading with Mr. McKee to write something about FGNW, or to allow me to write it for his venues! *tear in my other eye* I should have convinced him of FGNW by now.
You wrote: "... (Mr. McKee and Mr. Ruff) are the weakest link."
I can neither confirm nor deny this assertion.
You wrote: "You will nEVER find me giving you airtime..."
Airtime isn't the real issue. Fair and objective debate is the issue. No problem taking verbal debate off the table. But in written-form you have already lost the debate, as your substack blocking proves and your email participation substantiates.
You wrote: "Before you start puking your bullshit, you'll show this exchange in full and the links to the articles, otherwise it proves you are a COWARD!"
By "puking your bullshit," are you referring to a fictional opening speech to a zoom discussion DEW versus FGNW, where I explain why you can't be in attendance?
By "this exchange", are you referring to these stupid e-mails we've been sending back and forth? What is your expectation for how I show this exchange in full?
Are you saying that I'll be proven a COWARD if I don't re-purpose our e-mails with working links to one of my writing venues before the day and time of the requested zoom debate, DEW versus FGNW?
Norman, honey-cakes, you don't determine my publication schedule. Yes, our e-mail (and substack/blog) exchange will be re-purposed to my blog, one day, when I get around to it, I procrastinate a lot. ... Gee, if you really want it public before the zoom debate, you're welcome to data-mine our email exchange and publish that to your substack. It does you few favors.
You've done nothing to bolster the Woodsian-DEW premise or to undermine FGNW. Zero specifics, zero details, 100% hypnotic suggestion.
And the thesis that references our (then published) exchange will be called: "chat-GPT bots acting the energy vampires in 9/11 truth social media."
// mcb
+++
x334 911 Revision (Norman) : discussion inferior to the evidence
2024-04-07
Maxwell
More word soup.
There is absolutely no reason for me to get into a discussion that is inferior to the evidence presented here: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com
I bid you adju
Norman
Part 12: FGNW Discussions with Gene Laratonda, Sandra Jelmi, Norman
x336 Maxwell C. Bridges : awaiting the email
2024-03-04
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda,
I'm still awaiting the email that you said you sent me with the
request (and explanation) for me not to attend your public meeting
yesterday.
// mcb
x338 Gene Laratonda : refrain from participating in the weekly calls of the 9/11 WarRoom
2024-03-04
Max...
From: gene laratonda.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 1:38 PM
To: norman@leafis.co.za
Cc: Sandra Jelmi
Subject: Clarification on Participation in 9/11 WarRoom Discussions
Dear Norman and Max,
I'm writing regarding our ongoing discussions in the 9/11 WarRoom.
While I appreciate your contributions, the focus of our weekly calls has been sidetracked by the addition of DEW and nuclear theories, and I'd like to redirect our discussions back to our core objectives.
So I'm requesting that you refrain from participating in the weekly calls of the 9/11 WarRoom. On a personal level, I do want to better understand these theories, and I'm still open to a separate discussion on DEW and nuclear theories, but the WarRoom is not the place. And while we do discuss evidence at times, the focus of that evidence is based on an overall consensus on what happened on 9/11, even if you disagree with it. Despite everything, I appreciate your commitment and dedication.
Thank you for understanding.
Sincerely,
Gene
x340 Maxwell C. Bridges : conflating me with DEW 9/11 Revision
2024-03-04
Dear Mr. Laratonda,
My internet service provider that I was using since 1995 started
reducing its services about 5 years ago, removing dashboards and tools
for maintaining my websites (because they didn't want to renew
licenses and install on old servers.) Thankfully I was old school and
got to do a lot with FTP, until that was turned off. Finally a year or
more ago, they announced they weren't supporting websites or email
anymore. Losing the email addresses hurt (like the one used since 1995
in all my personal business vendor accounts), but it was announced
very early and I had time to update all of my vendor contacts.
Lost my "maxbridges.us" domain and email addresses. Yes, I could fire
up my website (with email addresses associated with the domain) on
another ISP... but meh. Maybe later if they unplug my blogspot. I've
got a localhost.
You boast your forum is public. Given that I participate mostly as a
fly on the wall EXCEPT when permitted to speak (one time for only 10
minutes at the end for a topic that requires the whole session), seems
rather draconian. Your conflating me with DEW 9/11 Revision.
I think your bigger dilemma is the DEW as promoted by 9/11 Revision.
Dr. Wood's work was never an end-station, but is being promoted by
9/11 Revision as if it were. I don't know how many times I've
encountered 9/11 Revision, because he/she uses multiple aliases. A
consistency has been brain-dead copy-and-paste, an inability to
acknowledge weaknesses in Dr. Wood's work, and then a brutal retreat:
FB blocking; substack blocking and deletion of our exchange, etc. This
last week, I've had email exchanges with 9/11 Revision.
I could almost swear that 9/11 Revision (and its previous entities) is
a ChatGPT that I probably helped train up in our discussions... except
9/11 Revision can't admit weaknesses, errors, or other premises (FGNW)
that stand on Dr. Wood's shoulders and take discussion to the next
level. Disingenuous.
If you are sincere in your statement: "I do want to better understand
these theories, and I'm still open to a separate discussion on DEW and
nuclear theories..."
We can pick up where we left off. Namely, we came into discussion
under a FB posting on NT where you (as its champion) flaked out when
challenged with explaining how NT explains, say, the anomalous
evidence recorded by NIST at Fresh Kills.
From there, you did go to a slightly older version of FGNW premise,
posted 6 points (rather copy-and-paste), but did not wait around for
the point-by-point rebuttal on my blog, nor did you respond to my
reminder email also with the point-by-point rebuttal.
I'm all about ADVANCING the 9/11 discussion. You can either reply to
that email (from October or so), or you can reply to this new blog
entry where I've re-purposed our discussion.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/fgnw-discussions-vol-4.html
In conclusion, don't conflate my actions with that of 9/11 Revision.
Oh, a final thought. When the work of, say, a 9/11 celebrity is found
wanting and in error with great omissions, it is not ad hominem to
point out those errors. However, the nature of the errors, once
explained, does reflect poorly on their integrity and character. The
figurative nuclear fallout from the viability of FGNW can impact the
reputations of a lot of people.
As far as I'm concerned, those 9/11 celebrities could say: "In light
of this new 9/11 analysis that collects and correlates a much wider
swath of 9/11 evidence, I change my opinion on 9/11 causes. I
acknowledge that FGNW comes closer to the truth, and I apologize for
having led the public astray with my former premises."
Alas, too many double-down on their limited hang-outs (including 9/11
Revision), rather than acknowledging and addressing the weaknesses in
their premise. They discredit themselves.
FGNW is the legitimate and valid 9/11 premise that will nuclear
energize all of your other 9/11 Truth endeavors. [Legitimate and
valid, because I've spend years shopping it around precisely to get it
debunked by my betters in 9/11 Truth, with no success except in the
area of pawning themselves.]
My 2024-03-21 presentation is turning into a hunt for Easter Eggs and
nuggets of truth. In order to create "mind-space" for a more robust
9/11 WTC explanation (FGNW), my presentation debunks the
disinformation from those premises that came before.
All the best,
// mcb
x342 Gene Laratonda : not discounting that FGNW may have been used in conjunction with the NanoThermite
2024-04-11
Max,
See attached. I have yet to listen to the Boston 9/11 Truth interview of you and I will. I am not discounting that FGNW may have been used in conjunction with the NanoThermite discovered in the WTC dust or the observable explosions going off floor by floor, but can you tell me if it is your position to discount Nanothermite and explosives while positing that only FGNW were used? Also note, I've politely asked that you refrain from joining future 9/11 WarRoom discussions.
Regards,
Gene
x344 Maxwell C. Bridges : two videos of the destruction
2024-04-11
Dear Mr. Laratonda,
At last week's meeting, Richard Gage and / or you had two videos of
the destruction. One was a stablized version. They show the sequencing
of the destruction wave.
Could you please pass me those video URLs?
Thank you,
// Maxwell C. Bridges
x346 Maxwell C. Bridges : haven't researched it yet, by your own admission
2024-04-11
Dear Mr. Laratonda,
Thank you for the videos; I thought they were online and posted on
YouTube somewhere with a URL. This will do, though, unless you have
the URLs.
+++
You wrote: "I am not discounting that FGNW may have been used in
conjunction with the NanoThermite discovered in the WTC dust or the
observable explosions going off floor by floor, but can you tell me if
it is your position to discount Nanothermite and explosives while
positing that only FGNW were used?"
I believe the perpetrators had back-up plans to their back-up plans
and threw everything including the kitchen sink at it. True when you
think about office kitchens that probably existed on most floors and
the restaurant at the top floor.
It was a true nuclear showcase event, demonstrating in the WTC
destruction many features, including reduced radiation badness and how
many floors can be dustified at once (> 9 floors based on WTC-4 and
WTC-6)..
You frame my position as "only FGNW"; I do not. I frame the discussion
as "the primary mechanisms of destruction," and that's where both NT
and explosives have major issues. NT involved? Maybe to a much lesser
degree. Primary? Not so much.
- They can't address the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- Their high decibel signature would have been evident.
- The residual "spire" anomaly in each tower; its purpose? [The spire
is a FGNW requirement.]
- They cannot explain NT configuration (NT incendiary mixed with
what?), NT implementation and install [and outfoxing the bomb sniffing
dogs.]
- They don't address the destruction to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 which
happened during the towers' demise, energetically put dust in the
error, and didn't have notable audio signatures or seismic signatures.
You wrote [repeated here out of context]: "... NanoThermite discovered
in the WTC dust..."
NT was only discovered in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones. Not
found in the dust samples for USGS, RJ Lee, or Paul Lioy. This by
itself doesn't negate Dr. Jones' dust samples. However, as other
issues with Dr. Jones' no-nukes / NT work come to light and this
assumption is returned to, the validity of those samples can be
legitimately questioned.
Ignoring for a moment the traces of fission in the dust that two of
those reports document [even if any explanation for the trace-elements
was blackholed], the dust samples had a high percentage of tiny iron
spheres that take a high energy source to create.
- The NT argument said this was a by-product of the NT reaction with
steel. Depending on carbon/oxygen in the steel, Dr. Harrit calculated
backwards to speculate an obscene amount of NT required... before
considering under-rubble hot-spots.
- The FGNW argument is that highly energetic neutrons emitted in a
targeted fashion (from multiple FGNW per detonation level) ablated the
metal pans and trusses that supported the concrete for the floors,
resulting in those iron spheres. Those water molecules in humans
instantly turning into very high temperature steam whose expanding
volumetric pressure blows the body apart, vaporized. Water molecules
trapped in concrete and drywall, that expanding pressure creates
micro-fractures throughout. Metal and aggregates in the concrete react
explosively.
You wrote [repeated here out of context]: "... or the observable
explosions going off floor by floor..."
"Explosions" doesn't have to mean "traditional chemical-based
explosives." In terms of "observable," the audio signature already
tells us it wasn't explosives-that-go-big-bang.
FGNW can explain the observable EXPLOSIVE activity going off (almost)
floor by floor. You just haven't researched it yet, by your own
admission.
+++
You wrote: "I have yet to listen to the Boston 9/11 Truth interview of
you and I will."
Yeah, well, from a position of admitted ignorance, why do you attack
FGNW and defend NT?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
Puts you at a disadvantage. I bet you also haven't read my blog
posting that gives a more detailed (and skimmable) case than the zooom
presentation could afford.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
+++
The reason I wanted to see those videos mentioned by Mr. Gage, was
that upon close inspection they cause me to evolve my FGNW
understanding further. You see, I've been assuming that the output
cone of highly energetic neutrons had the same energy effects
everywhere in the output cone (albeit degrading or losing energy for
every floor passed through). Also I assumed that the angle of the cone
remained constant throughout the duration of the nuclear emission.
Further, I've also been trying to minimize the number of detonation
levels in the towers (6-10) and the number of devices (4 per
detonation level). All areas that could be refined.
Change in my understanding: Imagining a tennis ball nuclear core for
the FGNW and the initial pin hole on top that allowed the neutrons to
escape upwards in a cone from the FGNW. Over the duration of the
output, that pin-hole might widen, which in turn widens the angle of
the output cone. The most intense concentration of neutrons comes
right up the center of the cone, while the area as the cone's edges
are approached might have less concentration of neutrons.
The placement and ignition of the FGNW, as seen in the videos, is 10+
floors below where the angle of its output cone grazes the wall
assemblies and spews dust. A widening cone angle could also give the
impression of "floor-by-floor" explosions, in addition to what the
next-lower FGNW overlapping output causes..
In the videos, the trajectory of the dust coming out the windows of
the wall assemblies (prior to separation from building) seemed to be
slightly upwards as if launched in response to the FGNW cones' angle
of attack.
+++
You wrote: "Also note, I've politely asked that you refrain from
joining future 9/11 WarRoom discussions."
In the 2024-03-04 email that politely tried to ban me, you wrote:
"While I appreciate your contributions, the focus of our weekly calls
has been sidetracked by the addition of DEW and nuclear theories, and
I'd like to redirect our discussions back to our core objectives. So
I'm requesting that you refrain from participating in the weekly calls
of the 9/11 WarRoom."
Wrong. You conflate the actions of the Woodsian-DEWers (such as 9/11
Revisionist ) with me.
I only talked at length about FGNW at an earlier meeting, and it was
an agreed-upon agenda item, 10 minutes at the very end that went long.
I don't bring up FGNW out of the blue other times, or monopolize the
discussion as happened recently with Hutchison (from Woodsian-DEW).
I'm also not spamming your chat.
I do not engage the Woodsian-DEWers in your (verbal) forum, except
that I am trying to get them interested in participating in a "DEW
versus FGNW" zoom discussion for a SEPARATE and DIFFERENT venue.
To that end, I've actually been an ally to you. I initiated 1-on-1
chat messages with various Woodsian-DEWers to obtain their contact
information in order to engage them later off-list. (That's what I did
with 9/11 Revisionist after that first meeting and my agenda
presentation.) I did not spam everyone in chat with those exchanges.
My participation last meeting (2024-04-07) [and future meetings] did
not have me sidetracking with DEW or nuclear theories. [30 second
roundtable excepted.] I did not impact your discussions into your core
objectives. My participation was on-topic; I had valid commentary on
Dave Vankleist on Boston 9/11 Truth.
Quote from your website: "The 9/11 War Room is a public roundtable Zoom."
"Public" is in the description.
I have (9/11) interests other than my hobby-horse that I'd like to get info on.
I'm in an entirely different class of 9/11 Truther.
The recommendation is for you to tolerate my meager participation in
your public forum intended as fly-on-wall. Unless it is an agenda
item, I won't be engaging in my hobby-horse, nor will I be riding to
distraction the Woodsian-DEW carousels. However, if the discussion is
NT, I will be asking the hard questions (see above) and expecting
more.
When the 30 second round-table baton passes to me, I'll briefly update
the group on FGNW progress. Examples of recent FGNW progress?
[A] I submitted a 2k word version (of my 10k word original) of the
FGNW case to IC911, and after over a week, Mr. Ted Walter finally got
back to me saying I ought to hear something in a couple weeks.
[B] Now that my zoom-cherry is popped, I'm trying to organize that
"DEW versus FGNW" zoom discussion.
You should be taking me and my hobby-horse seriously.
The fact that, after all this time, you have not read my premise or
watched my presentation, yet want to ban me from future meetings of
your public forum for a "pre-crime" not committed?!!
If that impression remains, not a good reflection on your objectivity
or integrity, and would confirm yet again the blackhole treatment my
FGNW hobby-horse receives.
In the 2024-03-04 email, you wrote: "And while we do discuss evidence
at times, the focus of that evidence is based on an overall consensus
on what happened on 9/11, even if you disagree with it."
The phrase "overall consensus" is a major weakness.
Spoiler alert: my presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth was a "9/11 Easter
Egg Hunt." Pillars of that "overall consensus" got easter-egged and
pwned.
+++
I know that you and Ms. Jelmi are puzzling over my purpose and agenda.
You should be supportive of my efforts to have an off-list "DEW versus
FGNW" zoom discussion, even if limited to tolerating me announcing it
and recruiting participants from your war room.
FGNW debunks Woodsian-DEW while re-purposing the relevant evidence
from Dr. Wood's book. If they are sincere truthers, the DEWers (and
the nukers) and promoters of other 9/11 theories should become FGNW
disciples.
However, as we both know, most of the Woodsian-DEWers are not sincere.
Norman (9/11 Revisionist), with whom I've been exchanging emails
incriminating to Norman's integrity and objectivity, has already
declined to participate. Similar to how he blocks me on Substack, he
can't defend DEW if limited to Dr. Wood's work. Although I'm told he
is a real person, if I have to judge from his written participation
with me (over months and multiple venues), he is a shallow, limited,
repetitive ChatGPT-bot.
Mr. Adam Ruff and Mr. Craig McKee were asked to moderate that zoom
discussion. Mr. Ruff was even told he could be antagonistic to both
DEW and FGNW, debunk them both if he could. He hyperventilated his
hyperbolic declination that verged on defamation. [I wear it with a
badge of honor. Pwned his ass a decade ago and still dings his
credibility today. Blocks me on FB and Substack] I could see Mr. McKee
possibly attending, but I strongly doubt he'll participate, let alone
act as a moderator.
I repeat: I'm in a different class of 9/11 Truther.
Where have I been all these years? Persistently plugging away, as
documented on my blog, rescuing nuggets of truth.
It was only in the last few months with more freedoms at home that I
could step up and give actual voice [in a zoom discussion] to my 9/11
FGNW hobby-horse.
I'm hoping to have FGNW legitimately debunked.
But failing that, I'm hoping to gain FGNW disciples. I've been a lone
nut for too long; won't be around forever; I can see retirement before
this decade ends; don't wanna be doing 9/11 Truth to supplement my
retirement income.
As a star-seed though, it is a mission to really finally plant the
pole deep on this 9/11 premise, because it relates to now (e.g.,
Israel) and because I need to move on to more recent conspiracy events
(Israel, COVID, Trump).
If validated, the FGNW premise nuclear energizes all other 9/11
Truther activities.
I'll see everyone at the next public war room (if I'm around), unless
you issue a more forceful banishment / censoring edict that will
totally not go your way or benefit your integrity long-term.
All the best,
// m.c.bridge
x348 Maxwell C. Bridges : post something and then you won't defend it?!!
2024-09-25
Dear Mr. Laratonda,
You post something about NT on FB and then you won't defend it?!! The posting and/or my comment about NT has been deleted (or rather, I can't get to it)?!! You initiate a conversation on FB and then you cut it off so no replies come in?!!
For the record, that is playing games.
Speaking as a matter of character, that is also pretty lame and completely undermines any notion that you are open-minded and objective.
Because your posting about NT and/or my comment about are now MIA, here's again what I wrote so that you can do the objective truther thing and legitimately consider the criticism.
// M.C. Bridges
++++ Comment about NT
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, more important questions than "why was NT in dust?" are:
- Why did two reports on the dust (USGS, Paul LIoy) list in their data tables Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities?
- Why did both of those dust reports put forth effort into giving lame-ass explanations for many of the elements reported in their tables, but nothing on why Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities would be present?
- Why did both of those dust reports ignore that Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities are fingerprints for a fission process?
- Why did the tritium report have such shoddy measurements, shoddy sampling, and only from the run-off to WTC-6 (not from the towers)? Why did the tritium report fraudulently re-define "trace" to be 55 times greater than it was previously? Instead of scope-limiting their report to "building content" and "potential health impacts", why didn't they consider other sources for tritium, like it being a building block of all 3rd/4th generation nuclear devices?
- Why were the dust samples of Dr. Steven Jones the only ones allegedly having these energetic flakes? Given that NT is an incendiary and Dr. Jones stated that in order to achieve the observed brissance/pulverization that something else like RDX needed to be added to it, why did Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth not explore his dust samples for that "something else?" When Dr. Jones used six (6) spikes in the off-gassing of the debris pile as alleged evidence of NT, he stated that "something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT", so why did Dr. Jones not explore his dust samples for that "something else?"
- The true NT argument was made from the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in EVERYONE's dust samples. They scope-limited themselves into only considering NT as the source, as if it is the only mechanism that can generate the excessive heat required to for that anomaly. They claimed they were the by-product of the NT reaction and calculate backwards to a massive amount. Why did they not use "scientific reasonableness" to consider the huge logistic hurdle this amounted to, and right under the nose of bomb-sniffing dogs?
- Why did the proponents for NT never provide details into installation and configuration that would result in anomalies such as "the spire", the dustification of concrete, the vaporization of metal pans and trusses, the disappearance of all office content and personnel? Specifically, if a destructive mechanism has as its goal the dustification of concrete, where and how was it applied? If you spray something up above ceiling tiles, you're spraying NT on metal pans and how would this affect the concrete on top of it? If you spray something on the concrete floors, you have to first move all office furnishings and lift up the carpeting, no?
- Given that the audio signature of the WTC towers' destruction did not sound like a machine gun with ~100 sequential explosions over ~10 seconds, and given that the first responders recalled it as "boom-boom-boom", or a cadence that could be counted like once every half second (or boom-every-fifth floor), (a) was every floor wired but detonated 5 floors at a time, or (b) was every 5th floor wired and the blast wave destroyed 5 floors at a time? With either (a) or (b), the audio signature would have been very loud and deafening, so how did NT accomplish the concrete dustification relatively quietly?
- Why did the proponents for NT never discuss how the damage to WTC-4 was created? (a) It doesn't have sufficient WTC-2 wall assemblies even falling from great heights to flatten 9 stories of WTC-4's main edifice, and (b) the longer videos of WTC-2 destruction all show a content-rich dust cloud energetically rising up from where WTC-4 was while the falling top-most WTC-2 wall assemblies were still seconds from street level. Did NT dustify WTC-4?
- Why did proponents of NT never discuss how the damage to WTC-6 was created? It has a an 8 story crater cut out of the middle of it with insufficient WTC-2 debris to account for this straight vertical cut. Why did WTC-4 and WTC-6 not resemble each other if the OCT (and NT) explanations for them were "falling tower wall assemblies"?
The above are glaring unanswered questions that the science-literate of AE9/11Truth didn't think were important when championing NT.
I could go on, but it would be a re-hash from this earlier version of my 9/11 theory of exotic 4th gen nuclear weapons.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
IMPORTANT CAROUSEL-SPIN AVOIDANCE!!!
Mr. Gene Laratonda, the above article is supposedly something you already read (maybe). At the least, you made a comment 2023-09-21 under that article. Owing to the character-count limitations of my blog, my reply to your comment had eight (8) parts, none of which you responded to.
I believe the questions above are new (to you) and deserve serious consideration. However, if you'd like to continue the exchange from before, remember to "advance the discussion" which means taking apart each of the eight part responses to discuss "the good, the bad, and the ugly."
P.S. I had (past-tense) lots of respect for Mr. Craig McKee, but only because my super-powers of being naive and trusting blinded me. Mr. McKee aspires to be "9/11 super-journalist," claims to be open-minded and objective. Alas, after over a decade of participation and exchanges in his forums, he refuses to seriously consider my hobby-horse legitimately -- not to read to identify typos, not as a blog/substack article as a theme to be discussed, not even for a "zoom FGNW ambush panel" that he and Mr. Ruff would control and could stack.
Something to consider. None of the 9/11 nukers (e.g., deep underground nukes) have publicly come over to my FGNW premise despite it being next-level nuke. None of the Woodsian-DEWers have publicly come over to my FGNW premise despite it being in the category of DEW, being able to have excess amounts of energy (the evidence does show being exhibited). Neither of the two could legitimately and rationally discuss the merits and demerits of the other, nor could they hook-up with one another for the devil's offspring FGNW. Team "Norman" (9/11 Revisionist) won't debate me, blocks me on social media. Because I debunk Woodsian-DEW legitimately; I debunk most nuke premises legitimately. McKee's Pentagon cabal (e.g., David Chandler, Wayne Coste) also don't want to discuss.
Whereas me being a lone-nut on my FGNW premise might raise a red flag -- from nukes to Woodsian-DEW nutters to NTers to AE9/11Truth to McKee to ... -- nobody wants to legitimately discuss (a) weaknesses to their hobby-horse premise (e.g., NT, Woodsian-DEW, deep-underground nukes) or (b) merits and demerits of the FGNW theory.
Here's an analogy. If my 9/11 theory was something wild-ass bat-shit crazy like "gummibears destroyed the WTC complex", there would be many influential people in the 9/11 truth movement who would step forward, take it seriously, and legitimately debunk the wild-ass bat-shit crazy theory. "Gummibears aren't explosive; gummibears don't burn for months; gummibears weren't found in the dust; gummibears would trigger bomb-sniffing dogs."
But given the depth of evidence supporting my 9/11 theory, the number of influential people in the 9/11 truth movement who take steps backwards, don't take it seriously, and make no attempt for a legitimate debunking, that right there is "blackhole treatment."
I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm not asking you believe it.
Just the opposite: don't trust me; don't believe it just because I say.
Instead, objectively and legitimately consider it. Legitimately vet FGNW or not; legitimately vet NT or not (particularly in light of the mortal wounding sustained above).
That's the ask.
//
x350 Gene Laratonda : All future mail goes to garbage
2024-09-25
I'm done with you. All future mail goes to garbage. I won't even see it. You come in the 9/11 WarRoom and you'll be booted immediately.
x352 Maxwell C. Bridges : test of your email filter
2024-09-25
Dear Mr. Laratonda,
If you're reading this, then you're outed (yet again) as a liar, because you said it went unread into the trash.
What a way to implode your credibility and reputation!!!
Thank you for validating all of my criticism of NT ... ~And~ those who promote it.
Some truther you are (not).
// mcb
Part 13: FGNW Discussions with Susan Serpa, Chris Bergier
x354 Susan Serpa : a DEW debate
2024-04-07
Susan Serpa
RE: 9/11 warroom zoom tonight: What exactly did you want to ask Chris Bergier and moderating what panel discussion?
I thought it was to be a DEW debate, but you posted the following in the War Room chat:
Not engaging in DEW debate, but showing Hutchison isn't only option. This is a peer-reviewed article in a reputable Science journal. The abstract is about all you need to read.
"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
x356 Chris Bergier : 1/2 Ton of TNT does to an 8 Ton whale
2024-04-07
Chris Bergier
Sue,
Did you mean the M-28 Davy Crocket nuclear device with a 20 ton TNT yield? Here is a photo of one in 1961.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Do you really think that after sending 100’s of Billions of dollars in research over to the Military Industrial complex that they have not come up with anything more exotic in the next 40 years.
Also be sure to watch what ½ Ton of TNT does to an 8 Ton whale and tell me if we see anything like this as the Towers Fell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34
Remember Dr. Judy Wood irrefutably proves in her 7 year forensic investigation that the weapon that destroyed the Twin Tower was neither Thermal nor Kinnetic. Another example of a thermal and kinetic weapon is the explosion in Tianjin China which I believe it was nuclear from the mushroom cloud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qARRLogg38k
Chris B.
x358 Maxwell C. Bridges : DEW versus FGNW bow-outs
2024-04-08
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Ms. Serpa,
The reason I posted into the zoom chat of 9/11 War Room yesterday the links to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article about FGNW was three-fold.
One, Mike Zarzano was plugging Woodsian-DEW by promoting the work of Hutchison and implied it was the only technology or mechanism that could create various 9/11 artifacts.
Two, Richard Gage was adamant that no nuclear weapons were involved. However his denial is very much old-school old-nukes in its nuclear framing (e.g., too energetic, too much radiation fall-out, and limited to single devices.) Actually, because Mr. Gage does not engage in nuclear discussions, his understanding and beliefs about nuclear capabilities are not known.
Three, I didn't want to distract or cause an argument, because I know Mr. Laratonda would be all too happy to use the bad behavior of one (DEW) participant to ban all parties participating in the rogue discussion (at the time, unsanctioned in his 9/11 War Room).
That was topic one and why I posted Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Topic two came about from the discussions I've been having with 9/11 Revisionist (Norman) over email.
I proposed a recorded zoom discussion: DEW versus FGNW.
Those Woodsian-DEWers from Boston 9/11 Truth and 9/11 War Room are welcome. All of them, probably against just me.
9/11 Revisionist (Norman) wrote to me yesterday that he will not be participating. Based on my interactions with Norman over many months (under the aliases that I know) in Facebook, McKee's substack, Norman's substack, and email, Norman is a shallow ChatGPT-bot. [When "he" attended a 9/11 War Room and made a comment, the voice was so deep, it sounded like computer-generated voice-morphing.]
I had also proposed to Mr. McKee and Mr. Ruff that they be moderators for the DEW versus FGNW zoom discussion. Actually, I suggested Mr. Ruff could be a participant or a biased moderator, because I know he is antagonistic to both DEW and FGNW. What's sorely needed in the 9/11 Truther realm is a definitive yes/no on these theories, and it could be a great thing for the world if DEW and FGNW got legitimately debunked (or vetted), and pretty funny if they debunked each other.
Same day, Mr. Ruff hyperventilated his short, declining response, full of hyperbole verging on defamation and desiring zero contact from me.
So on the same day that I propose the DEW versus FGNW zoom discussion, two players Mr. Adam Ruff and Mr. Norman (9/11 Revisionist) are already out. [Is it me? Or is it a coincidence that both also block me on FB and substack?]
What is my agenda?
[1] I would applaud my beloved FGNW 9/11 hobby-horse getting legitimately debunked and shot out from underneath me. I am open-minded and objective and can be convinced of errors in my premise and the strengths in others. Testimony to this is the fact that I used to champion conventional demolition, nukes, deep nukes, nano-thermite, and Woodsian-DEW (until new evidence and better analysis had me evolve my views). Disclaimer: based on my evolution, "DEW" framed exclusively from Dr. Wood's book likely won't convince me to reject FGNW, because the book "draws no conclusions", mostly just presents evidence that FGNW easily addresses, and is a step backwards in my 9/11 evolution.
[2] I want to recruit FGNW disciples. My naive and trusting nature suggests that sincere Woodsian-DEWers (and Nukers) could/would/should evolve their views to FGNW upon reflection of the weaknesses of Dr. Wood's work and the strengths of FGNW. After all, FGNW addresses all of the relevant evidence (including that from Dr. Wood's book, reports on the dust and tritium), can be conveniently powered to the observed overkill excess, and can be easily installed.
It isn't agenda item #3, but FGNW sometimes can't help but expose insincere truthers, agents, and bots. How so? A sincere truther can look at and acknowledge an anomalous piece of evidence; they can admit maybe they don't know how it was created, or that the theory they've been championing doesn't have a (PhD's) explanation for implementation and installation; they can admit to errors or issues in their own source material.
On the other hand, an insincere truther can't do any of that; it can be quite the 20/20-hindsight to behold the verbal gymnastics deployed to avoid a rational discussion or even reasonable expectations of reading source material.
It is well that both 9/11 Revisionist (Norman) and Mr. Adam Ruff won't be participating. I've already got the receipts on their objectivity and integrity that pegs them as "insincere truthers".
At any rate, seeing how my zoom-cherry has been popped, are there those interested in participating in this DEW verus FGNW discussion?
If so, please suggest convenient days/times of the week with time zone.
// mcb (Maxwell C. Bridges)
x360 Chris Bergier : Thermite verse DEW
2024-04-08
Chris Bergier
Hi Maxwell,
I think we should have a few debates. The first one that I think should be done is Thermite verse DEW. There are a few other members that are very knowledgeable about Dr. Wood’s work that could also participate. I’m extremely busy with home construction project over the next 6 months so I would prefer to wait after that time so I can find the time to prepare myself. I also recommend 9/11 research be balanced with 9/11 activism and I’ll be busy doing activism next week. Please send me podcasts or videos of Dr. Andre Gsponer’s 9/11 work and I’ll take a look at them. I’m more interested in the Truth than being correct! I did have face to face skype call with Norman who calls himself the 9/11 revisionist. I can insure you that he is a real person from Capetown South Africa. His personality is ruff around the edges but I give him a lot of credit for pushing out Dr. Woods work to Truth Seekers and summarizing it very well on his sub stack website.
Chris Bergier
P.S. Why don’t you make a 1 to 2 hour video presentation of your 9/11 FGNW theory research. If there are other that promote your research, please send out videos of them talking about it!
x362 Maxwell C. Bridges : "NT versus DEW" will not be productive
2024-04-08
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Bergier,
You wrote: "I think we should have a few debates. The first one that I think should be done is Thermite verse DEW."
I do not think a debate "NT versus DEW" will be productive.
On various (FB) forums where 9/11 is discussed, I presented the NIST video of anomalous steel at Fresh Kills and called out the NT supporters (in particular Mr. Wayne Coste) and asked them to have NT explain it. The higher up you go in the 9/11 Truth food-chain of those supporting NT, the less likely they'll publicly defend NT. They slow-walked the WTC analysis and offered nothing for WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6.
Worse than NTers not attempting to explain anomalous evidence in videos is their inability to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
However, duration of hot-spots does double-duty in terms of also debunking the hand-wavey, loosey-goosey, Woodsian-DEW. How so? Theoretically, DEW from outside and at a distance caused the WTC destruction & anomalous evidence, but then the energy beam was shut off as the plane or satellite flew off.
(a) Assuming DEW heated things, those things would cool rather rapidly over several days and thus not be able to account for the duration of hot-spots (months).
(b) Assuming DEW was a "cool" event as proposed by many Woodsian-DEWers, then that type of DEW by definition can't explain the hot-spots.
[FTR, FGNW explain the hot-spots with some of the many tandem FGNW not meeting their full nuclear yield and doing a "nuclear fizzle."]
Thus, a discussion "NT versus DEW" IMHO is literally two disinfo premises going head-to-head, and can't help but debunk both if participants are being sincere.
The reasons I want a "DEW versus FGNW" discussion are because:
- FGNW is next-level Woodsian-DEW.
- FGNW is the direction her work was taking on several fronts but was halted and/or not carried over from her website.
- FGNW can address the relevant evidence from Dr. Wood's work.
- FGNW is in the category of DEW.
- FGNW can be real-world (nuclear) powered with dustification energy to spare.
Thus, Woodsian-DEW champions and nukers are FGNW's natural allies.
You wrote: "There are a few other members that are very knowledgeable about Dr. Wood’s work that could also participate."
Please send along my contact information to them, forward them this email, point them to my presentation on Boston 9/11 Truth.
You wrote: "Please send me podcasts or videos of Dr. Andre Gsponer’s 9/11 work and I’ll take a look at them."
No can do. To my knowledge, Dr. Gsponer has not publicly written or spoken a single word about his speculation into 9/11. He's written several dozen physics related papers (in 3+ different languages), a book on FGNW (1997), and the article (2005), "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects", whose abstract is really all you need:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Just like Dr. Wood took her work "thus far, and no further" hoping that others would acknowledge her Easter Egg, stand on the shoulders of her collected evidence, and take the DEW theory to its proper level, the same is probably true of Dr. Gsponer. If you look at his CV and where he's worked, too much outspokenness on 9/11 would not have benefited him or his loved ones.
You wrote: "I did have face to face skype call with Norman who calls himself the 9/11 revisionist. I can insure you that he is a real person from Capetown South Africa. His personality is ruff around the edges but I give him a lot of credit for pushing out Dr. Woods work to Truth Seekers and summarizing it very well on his sub stack website."
In some ways it is a let down to learn that Norman (9/11 Revisionist) is a real person. As a chatGPT-bot, at least then there are excuses for shallowness, not following links (to Dr. Gsponer), canned replies, repetitiveness in argumentation, etc. He isn't very sincere. He can't even acknowledge any weakness in Dr. Wood's work, which is required in order to appreciate her strengths and take her evidence to the next level.
You wrote: "I’m more interested in the Truth than being correct!"
Me, too. But this isn't Norman. He acts the agent with his spamming poor behavior. Whereas we've exchanged emails regularly, the fact that he deleted my commentary and blocks me on his substack are signs.
You wrote: "P.S. Why don’t you make a 1 to 2 hour video presentation of your 9/11 FGNW theory research."
Helloooo?!! Already done. You were even present for it as it went down, Boston 9/11 Truth, "9/11 Easter Egg Hunt towards Fourth Gen Exotic Nuclear Weapons" (2024-03-21). Maybe watch it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
My blog also has it written up, and goes into more details than my presentation. Be sure to go into the reference notes. "9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons" This is better than a 1 to 2 hour video, because reading/skimming it isn't a two hour time-suck, and only becomes such when the several videos (from NIST/FEMA, David Chandler) are watched in their entirety.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
Plus, I recently pared that down from 10k words to 2k words in order to submit to IC911J (Ted Walker). We'll see what they do.
Doing what I can.
You wrote: "If there are other that promote your research, please send out videos of them talking about it!"
No can do. As far as I know, I'm the lone nut on this 9/11 hobby-horse.
I take that back. Dr. James Fetzer and some of his associates did eventually start promoting a nuclear 9/11. However, by not referencing the works of Dr. Andre Gsponer (or equivalent), they aren't very good about speculating into the weapons' output, configuration, placement. Dr. Fetzer has a habit of championing any disinfo that comes across his plate for two reasons. (1) He doesn't want to be guilty of being a bottle-neck or gate-keeper from some premise or its nuggets of truth getting attention. (2) He supplements his retirement income by being a clearing house of conspiracy theories, which like many (Alex Jones, rense.com, Andrew Johnson) doesn't require him to be a true believer.
Again, my agenda with a discussion "DEW versus FGNW" is to get converts from DEW and disciples for FGNW [or another theory even more fleshed out, because "I’m more interested in the Truth than being correct!"]
// Maxwell C. Bridges
Part 14: FGNW Discussions with Roland Angle, Chris Bergier
x364 Maxwell C. Bridges : does AE911Truth have a lawful expectation that its reports be truthful or accurate?
2024-04-19
Roland Angle Roleangle@gmail.com
Chris Bergier
Craig McKee
New 9/11 Investigation
Maxwell C. Bridges
4024-04-19
Dear Mr. Roland Angle,
Thank you for taking the time to address the Boston 9/11 Truth zoom conference the other day.
I agree that a new investigation into 9/11 is needed. If the investigation is genuine and sincere, I predict that their conclusions for the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction will be my 9/11 thesis. [URLs below.] If nano-thermite was involved, they'll determine it wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction.
But we know that the new 9/11 investigation from government entities, as per the JFK playbook, won't come about until after more stalling and footdragging despite pressure from the aging remnants of the 9/11 Truth movement, dinging the investigation's credibility before its conclusions are even penned.
I'm most appreciative that you revealed some of the tricks used to "blackhole" truth.
For example, if the government/agency (NIST) never performed analysis into, say, individually WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, then there is nothing for a "Request For Correction" (RFC) to attach itself to. Plus, there is the issue of "standing," which I/we don't have, and the gem about no lawful expectation that the agency reports be truthful or accurate.
Regarding AE911Truth where you are CEO, rhetorically does AE911Truth have a lawful expectation that its reports be truthful or accurate? Maybe "moral expectation" is more correct that I'm sure you adhere to.
I am a vetted member of AE911Truth [under my real-name, available upon need-to-know request.]
Thus, if there were any "RFC to AE911Truth" process, I have standing to issue complaints about its reports (e.g., FAQ #15) and be taken seriously. [Reference note 8 of my 9/11 thesis; URL below.] Alas, AE911Truth is also missing analysis into, say, individually WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, then there is nothing for a RFC to attach itself to.
IMPORTANT: Dr. Andre Gsponer's nuclear research, books, and publications in the decade leading up to 9/11 represents a MAJOR (nuclear) CRATER in the literature reviews of Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, and -->> AE911Truth FAQ #15 <<-- before these 9/11 celebrities in their dubious conclusions attempt to discredit "~all~ forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement."
Dr. Andre Gsponer, "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" (2005); nuclear scientist peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
To my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written or uttered any speculation into 9/11. For that matter, Dr. Judy Wood's work also doesn't connect dots or draw conclusions, but according to her own words is important for the evidence.
Standing on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's evidence and Dr. Gsponer's research, my 9/11 thesis is "Fourth Generation Exotic Nuclear Weapons".
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
The above thesis is more-or-less what was expected of AE911Truth to have produced a decade or more ago, if infiltration wasn't side-tracking "public thought" into incomplete limited-hang-outs (like nano-thermite). Missing from AE911Truth's efforts are analysis individually into WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, but my thesis covers them.
Be sure to expand the reference notes, because they contain many important Easter Eggs.
I encourage you to watch the 2024-03-21 Boston 9/11 Truth edition, where I presented this thesis orally for the first time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
Although it can be a bit of a time-suck, this 9/11 video provides insight and analysis that you truly probably haven't seen before.
SPOILER: AE911Truth FAQ #15 is addressed and discredited, along with Dr. Wood and others.
Not to brag but more to demonstrate my earnestness and sincerity, my "vanity blog" more or less documents my evolution in 9/11 understanding as a result of (attempts at) rational discussion in various online forums on 9/11 themes.
+++
P.S. The FGNW version that is linked above is 10k words. I recently cut this down to 2k words and submitted it to IC911. According to Mr. Ted Walter, we're approaching the time when I should be hearing back from them. I previously submitted the 10k word version, but the bloat above 2k were the collapsed reference notes.
P.P.S. Although I champion the evidence in Dr. Wood's book, I do not champion her theories, because she has none, on purpose, by design, and an oft-touted selling-point by her ardent sockpuppets, supporters, and teammates on the Woodsian-DEW psyops team.
Dr. Wood drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, and draws no conclusions. She also did a crappy job of research into both DEW and nuclear devices.
Kind of funny, this clever gambit of no conclusions. (A) It debunks the wannabe-debunkers of Woodsian-DEW, because there are no real-world functional DEW mechanisms of destruction discussed in an operational sense to be debunked. So the wannabe-debunkers of Woodsian-DEW are essentially setting up strawmen arguments, malframed to fit their agenda.
(B) But this crafty omission also pings the sincerity of most Woodsian-DEWers, because most won't acknowledge that Dr. Wood's work was not "an end-station." One would think they would keep their eyes open for an actual DEW premise that does address Dr. Wood's evidence, such as FGNW, and convert to be "FGNW disciples."
In my experience, most active Woodsian-DEWers (psyops team) fight all 9/11 premise -- unless vaguely mentioned in her book -- with repetitive canned responses, and ardently claw any attempt at rational discussion backwards to Dr. Wood's "not an end-station" book that has no conclusions. This, regardless of a (deviant) premise's ability to address said evidence in her book and other real-world implementation concerns.
// M.C.Bridges
x366 Chris Bergier : Licensed Professional Engineer oston 9/11 Truth, Activist and Researcher
2024-04-20
Chris Bergier
Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges,
Dr. Judy Wood performed a 7 year detailed forensic investigation on what actually happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11 by examining 1000’s of photographs and 100’s of eyewitness video’s and testimony. She wrote a 500 page book about her findings that I myself read. I encourage anyone interested in 9/11 research do the same. She presents her findings at the Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NbBxDGSkI
Dr. Judy Wood says that the process of turning approx. 85% of the mass of the Twin Towers to dust before they hit the ground was neither Kinetic nor Thermal. Forth Gen. Nuke and Thermite could not possibly have been the main mechanism to dustily the Towers because they operate kinetically and thermally in their destruction method. If you are still not convinced that the Towers, turned to dust, then be sure to watch this short 12 min. video from the movie Irrefutable produced by Dr. Judy Wood.
https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/judy-wood-twin-towers
Following are three pieces of evidence I found myself supporting this irrefutable fact that the process to bring down the Towers was neither nether Kinetic nor Thermal:
1.) Pasqual Buzzelli testifies to have surfed down 15-18 stories of falling debris as the North Tower collapsed. He claims to have been in Stairwell B on the 22nd floor at the same time the North Tower started collapsing. When he landed, he was on the 4th floor in Stairwell B and was knocked unconscious for a short while. Then shortly after began to become conscious, cough and feel pain. Then he looked up and there was nothing above him but blue sky because to his amazement the 110 story North Tower was completely gone. See his testimony in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRVUvgJpi50
With all the 4rth gen Nukes and or Nano-thermite cutting charges going off to break up the steel in the building, how come Pasquale Buzzelli did not receive any severe injury or even mild burns to his face or body?
2.) In the 9/11 Museum in Manhattan there is a Bible fused to a piece of steel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SLmxbhbBhk
See attachment. If paper burns at 451 deg. F and steel melts at 2700 deg. F, how could you melt a piece of steel and fuse bible to it? Notice the steel dripping down the front page of the bible. This steel could not possibly have been hot!
3.) The Wheel from a car parked near the base of the Twin Towers has folded over. The wheel landed on un=burnt newspaper. See attachment for the best explanation that caused this to happen.
Also, if you are not familiar with what a Kinetic Explosion is, then please watch what ½ tons of TNT does to an 8 ton whale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34
I don’t remember seeing anything like this exploding whale when the Towers fell! Mass of both twin Towers = 1,041,000 Tons., Mass of Whale = 8 Tons. therefore you would have seen an explosion 130,000 times more greater which surely would have killed several millions of people in Manhattan. Didn’t happen!!!!!!!
What type of an investigation did the researcher you support named Dr. Andre Gsponer who advocates the 4th Gen. Nuke hypothesis perform on the Twin Towers after 9/11? If you have a video of him talking about his investigations, please forward it to me?
Sincerely,
Chris Bergier, PE.
(Licensed Professional Engineer)
Boston 9/11 Truth, Activist and Researcher
x368 Maxwell C. Bridges : discredit Mr. Bergier's Woodsian-DEW
2024-04-21
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Angle,
I apologize that this discussion about a new 9/11 investigation has suddenly grown in the number of lurker-readers and turned into the cul-de-sac of Woodsian-DEW.
I've only recently come in communication with Mr. Bergier. Believing him sincere albeit DEW misguided, my agenda with him and other Woodsian-DEWers is to convert them from Woodsian-DEW to FGNW-DEW. Clearly, he is not there yet, nor do I know that he ever will be.
For your sake and those of the expanded lurker-readers, observe as I discredit Mr. Bergier's Woodsian-DEW.
Dear Mr. Bergier,
Two of the startings points for this discussion were:
[1] Dr. Andre Gsponer work, "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" (2005).
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
[2] My 9/11 thesis is "Fourth Generation Exotic Nuclear Weapons".
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
These works have been "shot across your bow" several times prior to, and then within, this email discussion, yet you haven't explored them as proven by your inability to point out anything specific "good, bad, or ugly" and then your malframing of FGNW later.
FGNW is a mechanism of destruction that can address the evidence collected in Dr. Wood's book.
SPOILER: Dr. Wood's book has no theory. Dr. Wood drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did poor research into both DEW and nuclear means.
In short, FGNW advances 9/11 understanding and could even be considered as standing on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work. But your efforts, Mr. Bergier (Licensed Professional Engineer), are lame attempts to claw understanding backwards to the Woodsian-DEW state THAT HAS NO CONCLUSIONS OR THEORIES!!!
You are not participating in good faith.
Mr. Bergier wrote: "Dr. Judy Wood performed a 7 year detailed forensic investigation on what actually happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11 by examining 1000’s of photographs and 100’s of eyewitness video’s and testimony. She wrote a 500 page book about her findings that I myself read. I encourage anyone interested in 9/11 research do the same."
Blah, blah, blah. I've read Dr. Wood's book and website front-to-back, do indeed like the 500 pages with full color images, and recommend it for the images and as a great example of clever and crafty disinformation! The collection of evidence was her achievement for 9/11 Truth, because whatever 9/11 theory-du-jour is crowned king has to address it.
Mr. Bergier wrote: "Dr. Judy Wood says that the process of turning approx. 85% of the mass of the Twin Towers to dust before they hit the ground was neither Kinetic nor Thermal."
First of all, the steel from the wall assemblies and inner core were accounted for in the pile, so the figure "approx. 85% of the mass" is inflated. What was dustified was the structure (concrete floors, metal pans, supporting trusses, office content & workers) between the inner-core and the outer wall assemblies.
Secondly, whatever lower percentage of dustified mass is agreed to, you parrot the Woodsian-DEWer talking point "the process was neither kinetic nor thermal." Agreed.
Mr. Bergier wrote: "Forth Gen. Nuke and Thermite could not possibly have been the main mechanism to dustily the Towers because they operate kinetically and thermally in their destruction method."
The deceit in the above sentence starts by equating FGNW with nano-thermite (NT) for easy straw-man knock-down. Whereas NT may operate kinetically and thermally upon ignition to destroy neighboring content, FGNW does not.
FGNW expels most of its nuclear yield as highly-energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion, making it the DEW that Dr. Wood could only hint at. The highly-energetic neutrons passing through the molecular structures of content leaves energy behind, often in the form of heat and often at levels that cause the leading edge of materials to ablate (vaporize) so quickly, a shockwave is sent through the remainder that blows it appear.
Stated another way, dustifying shockwaves originating from within the molecular structures of content as a result of the energy left-behind from neutrons is vastly DIFFERENT than chemical-based explosives (and 1st through 3rd gen nukes) which rely on a large heat wave and blast wave from the ignition point to destroy neighboring content.
Mr. Bergier wrote: "Pasqual Buzzelli testifies to have surfed down 15-18 stories of falling debris as the North Tower collapsed. He claims to have been in Stairwell B on the 22nd floor at the same time the North Tower started collapsing. When he landed, he was on the 4th floor in Stairwell B and was knocked unconscious for a short while. Then shortly after began to become conscious, cough and feel pain. Then he looked up and there was nothing above him but blue sky because to his amazement the 110 story North Tower was completely gone."
The FGNW can explain this in a real-world fashion (but Woodsian-DEWers cannot). My present FGNW theory (for the towers) speculates 4 FGNW per detonation level, and 10-20 detonation levels. A misaligned, misconfigured, or misfired FGNW has the potential to foul upper and neighboring devices (causing a hot-spot nuclear fizzle). Between that and possibly a measurable duration between ignition and full yield necessitated mounting them on a stable platform that wasn't blow out from underneath them. Essentially, the FGNW of each detonation level were mounted on the four outsides of the inner-core, with their cone-shaped output aimed upwards and away from the inner-core. The anomaly called "the spire" existed briefly in both towers' demise and represents that stable platform.
Mr. Bergier wrote: "With all the 4rth gen Nukes and or Nano-thermite cutting charges going off to break up the steel in the building, how come Pasquale Buzzelli did not receive any severe injury or even mild burns to his face or body?"
Again with the strawman of associating FGNW with NT! FAIL!
Mr. Pasqual Buzzelli had luck that his location in the stairwell was inside the core, while the FGNW were mounted on the outside faces of the core. The FGNW output cone wasn't aimed at him, and there weren't "clean-up" devices below his position on the 4th floor to zap him into oblivion.
Mr. Bergier wrote: "In the 9/11 Museum in Manhattan there is a Bible fused to a piece of steel. If paper burns at 451 deg. F and steel melts at 2700 deg. F, how could you melt a piece of steel and fuse bible to it? Notice the steel dripping down the front page of the bible. This steel could not possibly have been hot!"
Here's how FGNW explains it.
The output cone of highly-energetic neutrons from a FGNW had variability in its energy density across the cone, with less energy density towards the edges of the cone. Particularly with metals impacted by highly-energetic neutrons, the leading edge ablated so quickly that it caused a shockwave within the material that would blow the material apart.
The metal in question (on the bible) was originally in a larger (whole) piece that was destroyed by a shockwave from ablation caused by the highly-energetic neutrons. Thus, this steel fragment maybe WAS NOT STEEL MELTING HOT, but came about from being within the original (whole) piece and somewhat near where ablation happened. I speculate that this proximity would make the fragment too hot for human touch but much less than the steel melting temperatures, and cooled a little by the fall to the bible.
How does Mr. Bergier explain this anomaly with Woodsian-DEW? What were the outputs of the DEW? Where were the DEW located? What were DEW inputs?
Mr. Bergier wrote: "The Wheel from a car parked near the base of the Twin Towers has folded over. The wheel landed on unburnt newspaper."
Targeted highly-energetic neutrons were a majority of the nuclear yield, but EMP was also still present in 20% of the yield (with heat wave and blast wave).
In previous years, I erroneously speculated that EMP slipped out through the window slits of the towers and causes the vehicle damage in parking lot and along West Broadway (documented by Dr. Judy Wood.) As part of my evolution in 9/11 understanding, I now acknowledge that EMP is line-of-sight and would have been mitigated by the metal floor pans and outside wall assemblies that remained in place until the next-lower FGNW's ignition took them out.
However, when the destruction to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 is considered, the ground-floor installation of their FGNW combined with big windows at the ground-floor of all those buildings would very well yield line-of-sight EMP that generated that evidence. How so?
EMP created Eddy currents in the metal that it hit line-of-sight. High enough currents lead to that metal heating up. With EMP and really high Eddy currents, content affixed to the metal ignites and metal with lower melting temperatures deforms. EMP has minimal effect on paper.
[mcb: I removed the exploding whale discussion, because it doesn't apply to FGNW.]
Mr. Bergier wrote: "What type of an investigation did the researcher you support named Dr. Andre Gsponer who advocates the 4th Gen. Nuke hypothesis perform on the Twin Towers after 9/11? If you have a video of him talking about his investigations, please forward it to me?"
WAIT!
Dr. Andre Gsponer -- to my knowledge -- does NOT advocate for FGNW used on 9/11 at the WTC (towers and 4 thru 7). He hasn't written anything on the subject of 9/11. Ergo, there will also be no videos of him talking about his investigations into 9/11.
Doesn't matter!
Remember, Dr. Wood has written NO 9/11 CONCLUSIONS. Dr. Gsponer has written nothing on 9/11. This does not negate their efforts from a third-party -- say, me -- writing up a thesis that makes their work applicable to consider for 9/11.
Dr. Andre Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11. And wrote the 2005 peer-reviewed article on FGNW linked above. Hasn't been refuted; but has been ignored. This was before Dr. Jones attempted to repudiate all forms of nuclear devices (2007) and before Dr. Wood put together her book (2010) that did a poor job of researching DEW and nuclear means. It is as if both did zero research into either topic.
SHAME ON YOU, Mr. Bergier! These very questions were asked by you and answered by me in a previous email conversation (2024-04-09) that included Ms. Susan Serpa. Seemingly, then, you are guilty of not reading emails just like are guilty of not reading the FGNW premise. Not good faith participation.
This is not an appropriate basis for a rational discussion and dings your integrity and objectivity.
Now that I discredited the Woodsian-DEW presented and moved understanding to fourth-gen exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW) as a viable explanation, here's hoping I get some converts from Woodsian-DEW to FGNW.
// M.C.Bridges
Part 15: FGNW Discussions with Boston 9/11 Truth
x370 Boston 911 Truth : Boston 911 Truth speaks with Maxwell Bridges
2024-03-21
Boston 911 Truth speaks with Maxwell Bridges (3 21 2024)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
In this 2024-03-21 edition of Boston 9/11 Truth, Maxwell C. Bridges presents the results of his many years spelunking into the various 9/11 rabbit-holes created to explain the WTC destruction.
The presentation addresses the discrediting issues of various popular 9/11 theories (e.g., nano-thermite, deep-underground nukes, Woodsian-DEW) while rescuing Easter Eggs and nuggets of truth before proving the case for fourth generation exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW).
Maxwell C. Bridges is an average, late-middle-age, white male but who has the super-powers of being: naive and trusting (until given reason not to be); sincere; persistent; and objective. He does ~not~ have: a doctorate's degree; degree in (nuclear) physics; security clearance; any form of access to any classified materials. He does have: a BA in a foreign language; BS in an engineering discipline; MS in a multi-disciplinary tech field; and a library card from his local institution of higher education with access to many online repositories. Just enough smarts to "question authority," as taught by the hippy generation before him.
To paraphrase President Reagan, "(dis)trust but verify (or not)." Maxwell C. Bridges put in the effort, did his own research, and came to his own conclusions based on considering all of the relevant evidence. In his online 9/11 activism, he saved his work and re-purposed to his "vanity blog", https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com, which documents his evolution in 9/11 understanding.
x372 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thank you for attending my TEDx talk
2024-03-21
Dear Mr. McKee,
Thank you for attending my TEDx talk. (Joke).
Attached is the presentation for your reference. However, the real
case was made in this blog article.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
Part 16: FGNW Discussions with Adam Ruff, Craig McKee, Roland Angle
x374 Maxwell C. Bridges : Get a FGNW grip, Mr. Ruff
2024-03-29
to: Adam Ruff
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Back in the day of T&S, your MVP (HybridRogue) was outed as manning
the A.Wright-sockpuppet in order to give himself 9/11 Truther cred. He
argued boths sides of the debate, but the A.Wright side being already
weaker and stilted was destined to lose.
Granted in the present day 9/11 Revisionist is demonstrating his
ChatGPT-bot origins and is annoying, he and I are separate entities
with separate agenda. This is easily proven by me publicly and
legitimately DEBUNKING 9/11 Revisionist and his Woodsian-DEW limited
hang-out. Because disinfo premises do not legitimately address other
disinfo premises and do not legitimately debunk other disinfo
premises, that right there removes the "disinfo" label from me and
puts me into a different category.
As far as I'm concerned, you might very well be manning the
ChatGPT-bot 9/11 Revisionist (9/11R). I've got no proof. Except that
you engage 9/11R in very shallow ways, and don't engage me at all. You
and 9/11R both have in common that you've both blocked me on substack
(and FB), because neither one of you is capable of having a rational
discussion, defending your own premises, or legitimately debunking
FGNW.
You benefit by having your sockpuppet bot 9/11R act the fool and
spammer, and then pawning 9/11R's actions off onto me, as if we
committed the same spamming offenses, promoted the same disinfo
premises, and were in some measure in cahoots with one another. (No,
you and 9/11R are in cahoots.)
Because you missed my first-ever 9/11 Truth presentation, here is a
link to the recording that Boston 9/11 Truth made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
For your reading pleasure, I've also attached the PDF. Of course this
is based on my latest write-up on FGNW exotic nuclear weapons.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
Unlike 9/11R, I rationally champion and defend my work.
Time for you to prove that you aren't the COINTELPRO agent
infiltrating Mr. McKee's work. Objectively and legitimately consider
my premise.
Meanwhile, I'll do you the favor of taking on 9/11R and objectively &
legitimately debunking his Woodsian-DEW. (SPOILER: Actually already
did in the video.) However, I've taken on 9/11R off-list. Until I was
blocked, I engaged on 9/11R's substack and Facebook. I am engaging
9/11R via email. [Thoroughly ChatGPT. Fodder for re-purposing on my
blog as another disappointing attempt to have my FGNW debunked.]
Chop, chop! Clearly I haven't gone away, and have only grown stronger.
Lookie there, I made my first video presentation!!! How's that for
growth and evolution?
At any rate, get a grip, grow-up, evolve.
// mcb
x376 Maxwell C. Bridges : an opportunity and a solution
2024-04-06
to: Craig McKee,
Adam Ruff
date: Apr 6, 2024, 4:52 PM
Dear Mr. McKee and Mr. Ruff,
I apologize to Mr. Ruff, who gets triggered by "anything" coming from me.
I come with an opportunity and a solution for the two of you.
The opportunity is for you to moderate a recorded zoom discussion
between FGNW versus Woodsian-DEW.
How is this also a solution for you, Mr. McKee?
First and foremost, you'll be the 9/11 host-with-the-most if you get
two persistent, persnickety (allegedly) disinfo premises to debunk
each other!!! My money is bet that only one will be thoroughly and
legitimately debunked, and the other will survive and grow stronger.
Second, consider it a corral. Once the oral discussion has been
recorded and re-posted to your venues, any further written discussion
can be limited to those postings. Any further attempts (by 9/11
Revisionist) to spam your substack forum could be re-directed to your
"free-speech corral".
On side FGNW: I guess I'm the lone nut.
On side Woodsian-DEW: I've noticed three or so DEW-leaning
participants on Boston 9/11 Truth or Laratonda's 9/11 War Room.
Unfortunately I learned just now while composing this very email that
Norman (a.k.a. 9/11 Revisionist) has "no inkling" to debate me in
person.
For Mr. Ruff's benefit, you should know that when 9/11 Revisionist
(Norman) first came onto McKee's substack and I engaged, I tried to
further the discussion off-list and eventually succeeded. We did have
exchanges on 9/11 Revisionist's substack, until my comments were
deleted and I was blocked. Turns out I had engaged Norman on Facebook
earlier, until he disappeared on Facebook. [The problem with
sockpuppets.]
For the last two months, I've had email exchanges with Norman (9/11
Revisionist).
Norman is an "Energy Vampire" disinfo team. One part of that team is a
shallow chat-GPT bot who can't follow links, can't go into details,
can't defend his own premise, and is constantly repeating stupid
mantras, like "your premise ain't nothing until it files a RFC with
NIST" (while failing to provide any URLs with instructions or
submittal forms to perform such a task.)
Mr. Ruff in his mind needs to separate my participation from that of
Norman's on Mr. McKee's public forums. My participation is articulate,
reasoned, unique, and on-topic even should my FGNW truth get briefly
inserted. Norman is not. Norman often copy-and-paste spams. After our
first encounters in February on McKee's substack, I haven't been
engaging Norman, even when Norman tries to engage me there by putting
down copy-and-paste spam replies to my on-topic comments.
Just like Mr. McKee on the Pentagon has his nemesis-cabal, it appears
that Woodsian-DEWers are stepping up their game to be my FGNW nemesis,
in part, to act as a distracting surrogate for the same cabal vexing
McKee. [BTW, I submitted a 2k word version of my premise to Mr. Walter
a week ago; haven't heard anything.]
At any rate, Mr. Ruff and Mr. McKee, when I started version 1 of this
email, I had hopes of you two moderating this FGNW versus DEW
discussion on zoom, in particular with 9/11 Revisionist (Norman)
participating [with others] against me. He's already chickened out,
though. So in this edited version of this email, there are a few other
publicly vocal Woodsian-DEWers we could invite (at the same time; them
against me).
Kudos to you Mr. Ruff, if you've read this far in my ramblings.
Here's a seed for why you should consider participating in this
opportunity and be part of the solution. It would be a legitimate
vetting or debunking of each deviant 9/11 premise, an outcome sorely
needed in the realm of 9/11 understanding through the whole world.
You could even do some FGNW and DEW research yourself and assist in
their debunking (I assume, based on your previous statements.)
Should you succeed, feather in your cap, my good man, and you'll have
the URL of the video to spread everywhere 9/11 Truth is spoken or
discussed, that all might know of the Truth obtained and the errors
exposed by your efforts!
In case you missed me promoting this link elsewhere, here was my 9/11
Easter Egg Hunt, and your needed primer on FGNW [along with last
article on my blog.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
// mcb
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video Boston 911 Truth speaks with Maxwell Bridges (3 21 2024)
x378 Adam Ruff : I said go away 6 times
2024-04-06
Adam Ruff
Sat, Apr 6, 6:26 PM
to Craig, me
If this is Maxwell Bridges you can just go away. I want nothing to do with you or your madness. At this point you are much closer to a stalker than just a nuisance. Let me make this crystal clear to you. I do not wish any contact with you. I am convinced that you are an unstable dangerous person and I am warning you to stay away from me. I reject completely your ridiculous mini nuke theory and I do not wish ANY engagement with you about it. Go stalk someone else. Your bait is declined. Your taunts are meaningless to me and quite amateurish. Rational discourse is not possible between us nor is it welcomed. Go away!
In case you did not get my message I said go away 6 times above.
Adam Ruff
PeoplesRights.org
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” - Henry David Thoreau
Thoreau
x380 Maxwell C. Bridges : Over-react much?!!
2024-04-06
Sat, Apr 6, 9:50 PM
to Adam, Craig
Dear Mr. Ruff,
To answer your question (and the reason for this reply): Yes, this is Maxwell C. Bridges. My apologies if that wasn't clear.
Wow! Over-react much?!! Good use of hyperbole! However, you defame me unnecessarily and without cause in public (to Mr. McKee).
You wrote: "you are an unstable dangerous person and I am warning you to stay away from me."
Those are lying words to picture me with criminal intent against you. You can't substantiate "unstable" with quotes or tone. Or how do you conflate "arrogance" with "unstable"? You can't substantiate "dangerous" in a physical sense. We live 2+ hours in an airplane apart, and the FBI will find none of my electronics having cloud-based browser histories with web-searches into your home address. You're safe from any physical harm from me.
... Ooops, I guess maybe I am "a danger" to your credibility and your objectivity, when my sincere attempts at rational 9/11 discussion wants to include you and results in your "go way" 6 times. You pawn yourself.
I ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR MESSAGE.
But if you call me out by name and write "MCB is a disinfo agent" as you did in Mr. McKee's substack, these actions in the future void any expectation that I leave you alone [from messages and words in reasoned reply.]
You are seemingly setting up a "long-ploy entrapment" scheme. You've set the bait of "no further contact" and implied deceitfully your life was at risk, so that you can bait future discussions with your ad hominem and misconstrue the justified written response as unwanted criminal contact. [FYI, a knowingly false report to the police is a criminal act. Defamation is also a crime.]
Having answered the question and acknowledged the no contact message from Mr. Ruff which justifies this email, in closing I write to Mr. McKee to speculate what could motivate Mr. Ruff to over-act in this close-minded, un-Truther manner? I was being sincere and inclusive, with a desire to have my premise legitimately debated and even debunked. Mr. Ruff? Exuberantly, not so much. That is a sign.
// mcb
x382 Adam Ruff : From here forward I am deleting all messages from you
2024-04-06
Adam Ruff
Apr 6, 2024, 11:32 PM
to me, Craig
From here forward I am deleting all messages from you whatever your real name is. Go forth and say whatever you want about me to whoever you want, I don't care. Just stay away from me.
Adam Ruff
PeoplesRights.org
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” - Henry David Thoreau
x384 Maxwell C. Bridges : RFC to ae911Truth about FAQ #15 (PDF) and FAQ #13
2024-11-08
to: Roland Angle,
cc: Susan Serpa,
Sandra Jelmi ,
Craig McKee,
Chris Bergier,
Alfred Magaletta,
Adam Ruff,
"gene laratonda.com" ,
911 Revision
date: Nov 8, 2024, 2:20 PM
subject: RFC to ae911Truth about FAQ #15 (PDF) and FAQ #13
Dear Mr. Roland Angle,
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth) submitted a “request for correction” (RFC) to NIST's final report on World Trade Center Building 7 and filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging NIST's response. The goal was to force the agency to perform new analyses and develop a new "probable collapse sequence" that is physically possible and consistent with the available evidence.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
As a vetted member of ae911truth (under my Bruce Wayne) I have standing to submit a "Request for Correction" from ae911truth for:
* FAQ #14 (website) / FAQ #15 (PDF): Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the WTC destruction. Why does AE911Truth not endorse this claim?
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/227-faq-13-various-authors-claim-that-nuclear-blasts-caused-or-contributed-to-the-wtc-destruction-why-does-ae911truth-not-endorse-this-claim
* FAQ #13: What is AE911Truth's assessment of the directed energy weapon (DEW) hypothesis?
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/353-faq-12-what-is-ae911truth-s-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis
+++
Here are the issues with FAQ #14 (#15 PDF) that need to be corrected.
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2015/Aug_2015/FAQ-15-supplement.pdf
* Frames the analysis as "nuclear blast", which implies a destructive wave of air and would be loud. Omits other types of nuclear emissions that don't use air as a destructive medium.
* Limits the nuclear research to large nuclear devices with large blast waves.
* Does not mention neutron bombs.
* Does not mention exotic 4th gen nuclear bombs (refer to Dr. Andre Gsponer), which are descendants of the neutron bomb.
* Does not refer to the Dust Analysis work of Mr. Jeff Prager, but its footnotes do cherry-pick from Prager's other works, mischaracterizes his words, and character assassinates him.
FAQ #15 (PDF) is a fraudulent work. Whereas I can agree that FAQ #15 does meet its objective in disproving that nuclear blasts destroyed the WTC, rather than debunking just those nuclear weapons having a destructive blast waves, its conclusions try to discredit all forms of nuclear involvement.
+++
Here are the issues with FAQ #13.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/353-faq-12-what-is-ae911truth-s-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis
* Frames the discussion as "beams-from-a-distance", "beams-from-aircraft", or "beams-from-space."
* Does not mention "beams-from-within."
* Name drops Dr. Judy Wood but provides no quotations or references from her book or website.
* Did no research into DEW. (Dr. Doug Beason's work is a glaring omission.)
* Does not mention exotic 4th gen nuclear bombs (refer to Dr. Andre Gsponer), which are in the category of DEW.
* Spent 40% of its already meager word-count plugging for nano-thermite, which is also a limited hang-out theory.
The point with correcting FAQ #13 is that if ae911truth is going to attempt to debunk Woodsian-DEW (which can be done), it needs to be done legitimately. It needs to address "the good, the bad, and the ugly" in Dr. Wood's work objectively and fairly.
SPOILER: Because Dr. Wood drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, drew no conclusions, and did poor research into both DEW and nuclear devices, the good news for the revision of FAQ #13 is that it will validate that her work cannot be held up as a conclusive and final theory. However, "the good" in her work is the collection evidence any potentially valid 9/11 theory needs to address legitimately.
+++
DO NOT BE AFRAID!
"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ~John Maynard Keynes
In this case, what facts have changed that will allow you and ae911truth to change its opinions?
None of the FAQ authors legitimately researched DEW or nuclear devices. If they had, they would have run across Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, such as "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" [https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071]
Because of the glaring deficiencies in ae911truth's FAQ #15 (PDF) and FAQ #13, as one who has standing in ae911truth, I request that corrections be made. Or better yet, I want ae911truth "to perform new analyses and develop a new 'probable collapse sequence' that is physically possible and consistent with the available evidence."
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
The new analyses should also publicly apologize from ae911truth to its patrons and the public for the poor scientific research that both of those farce FAQ's presently represent.
Sincerely,
// Maxwell C. Bridges
x386 Adam Ruff : I do not want to speak to you
2024-11-10
Adam Ruff
Sun, Nov 10, 12:27 PM
to me
Take me off your mailing lists I do not want to speak to you.
Adam Ruff
PeoplesRights.ws
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” - Henry David Thoreau
Part 17: Pentagon NPT Discussions with Darin Harvey, Simon Falkner, Nelson Martins
x388 Darin Harvey : jack off to Loose Change DVD's
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Meme with pictures of Adam Ruff and Craig McKee with the words: "I jack off to Loose Change DVD's. I like to watch."
x390 Maxwell C. Bridges : what inspires the sentiment of the (funny) meme?
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, Might I inquire as to what inspires the sentiment of the (funny) meme?
I did watch the two episodes. I have other issues with the dynamic duo, but only a few technical hair-splits to get my panties in a wad albeit not enough to complain.
What's your beef?
//
x392 Darin Harvey : both are no planers
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges they are both no planers. They endorse Alex Jones.
They believe Sandy Hook was fake
Anything else?
x394 Maxwell C. Bridges : a requirement of the operation that the light poles be staged
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, such loosey-goosey use of "no planer" language isn't good for making a point. There were four incidents allegedly involving aircraft. To which are you referring?
The phrase "no planer" is meant to mock those who believe CGI did the WTC towers, and not actual aircraft. McKee/Ruff both believe that aircraft hit the WTC towers.
With regards to the Pentagon and Shanksville,
Craig McKee/Ruff believe there is both insufficient evidence of aircraft and overwhelming evidence of staging. To call that position "no planers" is disingenuous to the disinfo agents who coined that phrase.
What I find funny is that the disinfo theory "WTC CGI (no planes)" debunks the (disinfo) theory of an actual "Pentagon aircraft". How so? If the perpetrators were so skilled to CGI the many perspectives of amateur footage to fake WTC planes, then they for sure had the skills to fake the 90+ videos that the FBI took from surrounding surveillance cameras have haven't released -- except for 7 frames from two parking cameras. Why didn't they? Because the WTC planes were real, and because the 90+ videos would need CGI tweaking, and if they only did a representative hand full and should any of the other non-doctored videos get wild in the public, the whole Pentagon CGI would undermine itself.
I firmly believe that the disinfo NPT (no planes theory) at the WTC was spun up to distract from the actual NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
Funny how the high velocity physics of the planes impacting the towers -- when properly described -- debunks many of the "pillars" in the NPT@WTC arguments. The velocity squared term in the energy equation at high velocity results in large energies that shatter matters; ergo, no expectation for wings to act as cohesive wholes and bounce off the towers (as if a low velocity parking lot fender bender).
And at the Pentagon, that same high velocity physics (demonstrated in a Mythbuster Rocket Sled and F4 Sandia videos) applied to aircraft wings and break-away light poles would have been wing-shattering catastrophic leaving a string of burning fuel across the lawn and wing (and aircraft) debris.
The above is a critical point, because whether or not a real aircraft flew the impact path, it was a requirement of the operation that the light poles (allegedly clipped by each wing) had to be staged.
//
x396 Darin Harvey : whole lot of nothing in your rambling
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges you said whole lot of nothing in your rambling
x398 Maxwell C. Bridges : a bit shallow on the reading-time
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, your reply hardly 2 minutes after I posted "my rambling" is a bit shallow on the reading-time, as is its assessment of "whole of nothing" having exactly nothing specific that it addressed.
So chatGPT-botish of you.
//
x400 Darin Harvey : What hit the Pentagon?
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges What hit the Pentagon?
x402 Maxwell C. Bridges : my wild-ass speculation on the matter
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, my wild-ass speculation on the matter is that (a) pre-planted explosives in the remodeling of the Pentagon wing and (b) a cruise missile launched from the insides of the construction trailer that got torched.
Yes, a real plane was involved, but it did not fly the trajectory of the downed light poles and flew over the Pentagon. Few are they who actually saw plane fly and impact into the Pentagon. Most just assume the plane made the explosion, and certainly before the smoke had cleared, corporate media told us what they wanted us to believe.
//
x404 Darin Harvey : breakaway bases on the poles
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges not really. Over 23 eye witnesses saw an American Airliner hit the Pentagon. The FDR showed the path from JFK to the Pentagon, DNA from the passengers were recovered and American Airlines plane debris was recovered
Darin Harvey
Because the light poles that were knocked down by flight 77 are not made of military grade “unbreakium”. They are hollow aluminum tubes with a wall thickness of around .2 inch, and breakaway bases.
Smack that with an aircraft wing that is nearly fully loaded with fuel moving in excess of 500mph, and what do you think is going to win, the huge ass wing or the straw of a light pole?
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges the breakaway bases on the poles is a safety measure
x406 Maxwell C. Bridges : could not leave it to chance that an airplane actually fly the required path
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, "not really" to the eye witnesses. Seeing a plane flying low; later seeing a fireball, smoke, and maybe hearing an explosion. Assuming one led to the other. Re-enforced by corporate media and the other events of the day. Not the same thing as seeing that plane hit the Pentagon.
The government's Easter Egg in this is that if there was truly a commercial aircraft involved in impacting the Pentagon, two decades ago they would have released, say, a dozen of the 90+ surveillance videos and really silenced the 9/11 Truthers on this front.
The FDR recorder shows the plane flying at 100 feet (or so); it doesn't show it at Pentagon elevation. Another Easter Egg.
Allegedly, fire at Pentagon so intense that it vaporized many airplane parts... yet somehow the DNA survived?
My wild-ass batshit crazy theory are that all commercial planes that were alleged to have taken off with the passenger/victims were landed (in Ohio) and swapped with drone planes painted with airline logos for the ruse. How the victims were dispatched is beyond the scope, but it can account for (a) faked cellphone calls to loved ones and (b) DNA collected and later inserted into evidence.
Minimal pieces of AA debris were collected. They should have had enough to rebuild it as if it were the space shuttle crash.
Monetary motivations meant that they could not leave it to chance that an airplane actually fly the alleged route while clipping poles. They had $2.3 trillion reasons and the entire Office of Naval Intelligence agents and records looking into those missing Pentagon funds -- the one major fatality at the Pentagon.
If it were me, I'd pre-plant it and send a close-range missile in to get some directional damage, but fly any real plane low but over-head and have it land in the confusion of every single airport.
//
x408 Darin Harvey : regurgitate old conspiracies
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges you like to regurgitate old conspiracies don’t you? It’s been almost 23 years and here you are regurgitating the same bullshit from loose change and the other kooks from 2006. No wonder the truth movement is cesspool of idiots and you’re Prime example of one
x410 Maxwell C. Bridges : safety measure for cars and highway speeds
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, the breakaway bases on the poles is a safety measure for cars and highway speeds. You could run the physics on light poles that were levitating in air (and not on breakaway bases). High-velocity wings hitting those dangling poles would still have resulted in wing shattering at impact point, which in turn would rupture wing fuel tanks and might also tempt the outer part of wing getting sheared from the inner part of wing. Such an invent would have made the aircraft not as precision controllable as the alleged aircraft were attributed... hitting at ground-level and getting all ONI agents and records into the missing $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld spoke about on Monday, 9/10/2001.
//
x412 Darin Harvey : Rumsfeld incriminate himself
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges Why would Rumsfeld incriminate himself the day before 911 if he was involved? You’re truly retarded
x414 Simon Falkner : "No-planer" refers to anyone claiming that the jet crashes were faked
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges "No-planer" refers to anyone claiming that the jet crashes were faked. You are repeating old debunked non-sense like McKee et al. #1. Plenty of witnesses directly saw the jet hit the building, including Sgt Lagasse that watched its tail yaw as it crashed into the building. #2. There are no 90 videos that anyone is refusing to release, the videos were released 15 plus years ago. #3. The FDR does not show the jet flying too high. The NTSB erroneous animation based on the incomplete and uncalibrated FDR that is missing the final 4 seconds or so, so it shows the altitude 4 seconds before the crash. The fully processed FDR data shows everything correctly and has been available for years.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "the breakaway bases on the poles is a safety measure for cars and highway speeds." --- ANSWER: No It is easy to break those poles down, here see a car easily knocking down a pole at the Pentagon parking lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u688jgI4oNQ It is even easier for an airborn plane to break it down because it hits the top of the pole which gives it leverage on the base. You believe in "christian science" and think you are an alien, so don't lecture people about real-world observable physical facts...
Caught on camera: Driver knocks down light pole at Pentagon parking lot & leaves
YOUTUBE.COM
x416 Maxwell C. Bridges : you miss the physics argument entirely
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, you miss the physics argument entirely. The light poles could be levitated with magnets and just dangling in the air. The velocity squared term in the energy equation at high velocities is sufficient energy -- equal-and-opposite -- to shatter portions of the wings (and light poles) at the impact locations, whether or not the wing is cut off, which in turn leaks fuel that ignites and would have made the Pentagon lawn something else entirely.
High velocity physics is the key to understanding.
Mythbuster rocket sled and S4 Sandia provide insight into what to expect.
//
x418 Maxwell C. Bridges : composition of the light poles isn't the issue; the high velocity is
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, calling me a retard is against the rules of this forum and falls into the category of bullying.
You wrote in a comment that I missed (before my commenting was turned off): "Because the light poles that were knocked down by flight 77 are not made of military grade “unbreakium”. They are hollow aluminum tubes with a wall thickness of around .2 inch, and breakaway bases."
The composition of the light poles isn't the issue; the high velocity is (if we assume a real aircraft). Doesn't matter whether the poles were break-away or levitating in the air. The square of the high velocity in the energy equation tells us what high energies are available at the impact location to overcome the molecular bonds of the materials and shatter them.
You wrote: "Smack that with an aircraft wing that is nearly fully loaded with fuel moving in excess of 500mph, and what do you think is going to win, the huge ass wing or the straw of a light pole?"
The "huge ass wing" is not solid steel. They aren't just hollow, they are "fully loaded with fuel." It isn't a matter of which -- light pole or wing -- is going to win. It is a matter of how much energy is available at the impact location of each when calculating properly the high-velocity squared in the energy equation.
Plenty of examples exist of wing-against-some-object at lower "parking lot speeds" that show the ease with which wings are sliced into.
Learn some physics, why don't you?
Physics proves the poles were staged, whether or not you are discussing a real aircraft. Assuming an aircraft impact, it never would have precisely hit the ONI Pentagon target if the poles were standing tall prior to its approach; ergo staged. Assuming no plane impact, staging the poles were requisite to the ruse.
//
x420 Maxwell C. Bridges : track record already misunderstanding physics
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, you wrote: "'No-planer' refers to anyone claiming that the jet crashes were faked."
Wrong. Originally the "no plane theory" (NPT) referred to CGI at the WTC and September Clues. I should know, because I championed such for a brief period until further research and objectivity brought me to other conclusions. NPT@WTC was spun up precisely to distract from real no-plane-crashes at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
You wrote: "You are repeating old debunked non-sense like McKee et al."
(a) Not debunked. (b) Not non-sense. (c) I differ from McKee in that I speculate into a missile launched from the construction trailers in addition to the pre-planted explosives from the renovation. (d) You seem to drop a lot of hypnotic suggestion.
You wrote: "#1. Plenty of witnesses directly saw the jet hit the building, including Sgt Lagasse that watched its tail yaw as it crashed into the building."
Wrong. Plenty of witnesses saw the jet and then saw the explosion, but few actually saw the jet on its full path and impacting the building. This includes Sgt Lagasse, who had no actual sighting of the impact location. They just assume the aircraft caused it, which corporate media quickly re-enforced and tainting all witnesses.
You wrote: "#2. There are no 90 videos that anyone is refusing to release, the videos were released 15 plus years ago."
You make the claim, you defend the claim.
I say that #2 statement is flat-out balderdash lying. The fact that they only released 7 (inconclusive) frames from two parking lot cameras instead of ANY of those 90+ confiscated surveillance videos.
But hey, prove me wrong. Provide the URLs.
You wrote: "#3. The FDR does not show the jet flying too high."
Yes it does. Further, it doesn't show it flying the path of the staged light poles.
You wrote: "The NTSB erroneous animation based on the incomplete and uncalibrated FDR that is missing the final 4 seconds or so, so it shows the altitude 4 seconds before the crash. The fully processed FDR data shows everything correctly and has been available for years."
So what you're saying is that they released an incomplete FDR missing the final 4 seconds -- not suspicious. And later managed to munge data into the final 4 seconds and released this, and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth missed this and were harping up the wrong tree for years.
Given your track record already of misunderstanding physics, lying about witness accounts, lying about releasing videos, etc., this statement probably falls into the same category.
The physics of the light poles along with eye witnesses to the fly-over plane flying a different path give away the lies of the Pentagon plane, where not releasing the videos (which is my assertion) only supports. [Looking forward to your URLs that debunk my assertion.]
//
x422 Simon Falkner : you follow "christian science," not real science
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Yes it does. Further, it doesn't show it flying the path of the staged light poles." --- ANSWER: No the FDR does not show it flying too high on the wrong path, the NTSB ANIMATION does that because it is not based on the complete and correct FDR data.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Pilots for 9/11 Truth missed this and were harping up the wrong tree for years."----- ANSWER: P4T ranted a lot about the FDR data after the erroneous NTSB animation was released, because the animation seemed to support the P4T non-sense about a flyover - But once P4T learned that the animation was in error and that the full FDR data supported the official flight, it started to rant about the FDR being faked. And so will you. Again, you do not really know anything about the subject - Sgt Lagasse, the videos, the FDR - you are just repeating very old debunked claims and showing your total ignorance of the actual state of research.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "you miss the physics argument entirely" --- ANSWER: No you miss the part where you follow "christian science," not real science, and the part where you are also a nutjob that thinks he is an alien starseed with special knowledge to give us mere Earthly humans. There is no mystery about how a freaking Boeing 757 at 500mph knocked down light poles that a normal car can easily knock down.
x424 Maxwell C. Bridges : the videos were released 15 plus years ago
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, I am perfectly willing to be convinced of your "plane impact" theory. I would like to see the video footage (even after a period spent enamored with CGI @ WTC and September Clues.)
You boasted in this very thread: "#2. There are no 90 videos that anyone is refusing to release, the videos were released 15 plus years ago."
You make the claim, you defend the claim.
Show me the URLs!!!
If your case -- if the government's case -- was really so strong regarding a 9/11 Pentagon aircraft, they could have squashed any disbelief with actual or CGI @ Pentagon videos from the surveillance cameras. Why wasn't this done?
Kind of shoots the government's case in the foot.
//
x426 Simon Falkner : FBI released the footage after a FOIA request in 2006
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges Read the article that I linked. The FBI released the footage after a FOIA request in 2006, and most of the alleged confiscated Pentagon footage had nothing to do with the Pentagon - and you have probably already seen all the footage from those videos that was actually from the Pentagon area and captured something: the footage from the 2 parking cams, plus the CITGO video, plus the Doubletree Hotel footage. If you are actually too ignorant to have seen those, then you will start ranting about faked videos like all the other idiots that refuse to accept the reality of the crash.
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Simon Falkner This guy is a CIT Clown 🤡
x430 Simon Falkner : No video is needed to prove the impact
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "If your case -- if the government's case -- was really so strong regarding a 9/11 Pentagon aircraft, they could have squashed any disbelief with actual or CGI @ Pentagon videos from the surveillance cameras. Why wasn't this done?" --- ANSWER: No video is needed to prove the impact. Eye witnesses in the air-traffic control at Reagan airport identified the AA 757 crashing, as did the C130 pilot following it just before the crash, as did several people on the gound in front of the building, including Sgt Lagasse. The inside of the building was also full of rubble from the AA 757, including the black-box, and DNA from the pilots, crew and passengers of flight 77 - so it is absolutely conclusive and beyond any doubt that flight 77 crashed into the building. As someone that pretends to know and respect science, you are surprisingly ignorant of the meaning and validity of hard science and forensic evidence as in FDR data from the black-box and the DNA evidence.
x432 Maxwell C. Bridges : "science" is repeatable, whether Newtonian science or Christian Science
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, I wrote correctly: "you miss the physics argument entirely."
You answered incorrectly with: "No you miss the part where you follow 'christian science,' not real science, and the part where you are also a nutjob that thinks he is an alien starseed with special knowledge to give us mere Earthly humans."
I'm also a Master Mason. Woo-hoo!!!
Not that it will benefit you, "science" is repeatable, whether it be Newtonian science (physics) or Christian Science (your physical health and well-being.)
You wrote: "There is no mystery about how a freaking Boeing 757 at 500mph knocked down light poles that a normal car can easily knock down."
Correct. Plus, your statement proves me right again: "you miss the physics argument entirely."
The mystery of physics is how the wings of a freaking Boeing 757 at 500 mph did not shatter at the impact location with light poles -- if not get severed from the rest of the plane -- making the aircraft hard to control for the precision ground-level strike on the Offices of Naval Intelligence, their agents and records.
Equal and opposite, Sir Newton tells us. Velocity squared term multiplied by mass in the energy equation.
You wrote (repeated): "... that a normal car can easily knock down."
What was the velocity of that normal car? Let's say 50 mph as a starting point for the discussion. What were the energies involved? E(car)=m(car)*[50 mph]^2 = 2500*m(car)
What were the energies involved with the plane? E(plane)=m(plane)*[500 mph]^2 = 250,000*m(plane).
If we briefly assume m(plane) is equal to m(car), the E(plane) would still be much greater than E(car) and only gets more lopside when actual mass for the plane is plugged in.
The 9/11 physics questions aren't about whether or not the light poles could be knocked down, as you incorrectly imply.
The important physics questions begin with recognizing that effects on the wings of the much greater energy available at the impact locations on the wings, owing to its high-velocity.
You made a claim, you defend the claim. I'll not do your busywork for you. Provide the URLs where those surveillance videos around the Pentagon conclusively depicts an aircraft impacting the Pentagon.
+++ In response to your latest comment
You wrote: "No video is needed to prove the impact."
Doesn't matter. They had the videos. They could have easily released the videos and their depiction of, supposedly, an actual aircraft hitting the Pentagon would have squashed a lot of disbelief.
Such behavior validates the assertion that the videos did not support the theory of a real aircraft.
You wrote: "Eye witnesses in the air-traffic control at Reagan airport identified the AA 757 crashing,"
Bullshit, balderdash, lies.
(a) Air-traffic controllers at Reagan airport to not have the eye-sight -- even enhanced with binoculars -- to see the plane, let alone its markings. (b) The aircraft had its transponders turned off; radar does not detect aircraft identifiers except what transponders tell them or what operators manually assign.
You wrote: "The inside of the building was also full of rubble from the AA 757, including the black-box, and DNA from the pilots, crew and passengers of flight 77 - so it is absolutely conclusive and beyond any doubt that flight 77 crashed into the building."
More bullshit, balderdash, lies.
The anomaly was that there wasn't a lot of AA 757 within the Pentagon -- engines, landing-gear -- leading to the disinfo speculation that the Pentagon fire was so intense, it vaporize those pieces, along with seats, luggage, clothes, bodies. But then oops! DNA was allegedly found?
My wild-ass speculation. Assuming the alleged commercial aircrafts took off with their manifest, that doesn't mean they flew the entire route. Turning off transponders and portions when they were off radar hint at the possibility of plane swaps. If the original plane landed elsewhere, they could make cellphone calls that in court were proven to be suspect: 0 second duration, no connection, planes not equiped for such, etc. And they wouldn't have to dig in rubble for DNA that they could enter into the evidence chain.
Mocking your words, "As someone that pretends to know and respect science, you are surprisingly ignorant of Newtonian physics."
And your ignorant of means, motives, and opportunity.
The missing $2.3 trillion in defense spending that ONI was investigating is a huge motive to kill those agents and destroy their records. Renovation on that wing together with hands in the arsenals of the military gave them means. Opportunity comes about with the dozens of military exercises distracting the armed forces planned for that day.
//
x434 Simon Falkner : You are no authority
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Provide the URLs where those surveillance videos around the Pentagon conclusively depicts an aircraft impacting the Pentagon..... They had the videos. They could have easily released the videos and their depiction of, supposedly, an actual aircraft hitting the Pentagon would have squashed a lot of disbelief." --- ANSWER: Again, there are no unreleased Pentagon videos. The only videos that showed anything relevant were released and have been available for nearly 2 decades: the 2 parking gate cams, plus the CITGO video, plus the Doubletree video. I never claimed any video conclusively proves the impact.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Bullshit, balderdash, lies." --- ANSWER: You are no authority on what air-traffic-control personnel can and cannot see with binoculars. If you do not believe them then you have the C130 pilot in the air that they asked to follow and identify the jet. And again there were also witnesses like Lagasse on the ground that identified the jet.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Turning off transponders and portions when they were off radar hint at the possibility of plane swaps. If the original plane landed elsewhere, they could make cellphone calls that in court were proven to be suspect:" --- ANSWER: The jet was on radar the whole flight, even though ATC lost track for a few minutes. The whole radar track could be traced after the fact and it shows the whole flight. The FDR also shows the whole flight and matches it. The phone calls were not proven suspect in court.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Mocking your words" ---ANSWER: Again you dildo, for someone that pretends to know and respect science, you are totally ignorant of the meaning and validity of forensic evidence and hard science such as FDR recordings and DNA. Again, the black-box was found in the rubble and the FDR shows the whole flight from take-off to crash, plus the previous 10 flights. The radar data also shows the whole flight and matches the FDR. Body remains from the passengers and crew of flight 77 were also found in the rubble inside the building, and the DNA confirms it. You do not understand that the fact that you try to mock this forensic evidence exposes that you are a non-scientific kook and a nutcase.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "ignorant of Newtonian physics." --- ANSWER: Again, you follow "christian science" not real science, so do not try to lecture people about physics. Here is a thought experiment for you to understand what I said about leverage: Take a shovel and stick it upright into the ground. Now if you try to make it fall over by punching sideways its base in the ground (analogy to car hitting lightpole), you might break your hand and still have an upright shovel still standing there. But if you hit the very top of the handle, slapping it sideways (analogy to an airplane in the air hitting the top of the lightpole), you can easily make the shovel fall over without hurting your hand. The force excerted on your hand is proportional to the force holding the shovel in the ground (or the lightpole base specifically designed to break away given X force), not the mass of the whole shovel or whole lightpole multiplied by velocity. With leverage, you divide that X force by the amount of leverage (height of lightpole/shovel). In sum, it is not surprising at all that a freaking 757 at 500mph could do this without falling to pieces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u688jgI4oNQ
x436 Maxwell C. Bridges : hypnotic suggestion fails again
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, you wrote: "Again, there are no unreleased Pentagon videos. The only videos that showed anything relevant were released and have been available for nearly 2 decades: the 2 parking gate cams, plus the CITGO video, plus the Doubletree video. I never claimed any video conclusively proves the impact."
Talk about my gullibility? You take the cake.
(a) They confiscated 90+ videos. (b) Thus, there should be 90+ video links. (c) You've let the perpetrators determine the narrative by narrowing down to only the videos they claim are relevant: 2 parking gate cams, plus the CITGO video, plus the Doubletree video.
If they had released those (90+) videos (as you claim without URLs), the various individuals and loosely organized groups within the Truth Movement would have re-posted them and had web pages than analyzed them one-by-one and publicly determined what was and was not relevant.
Your hypnotic suggestion fails again.
+++ Your impatient second comment
You wrote: "You are no authority on what air-traffic-control personnel can and cannot see with binoculars."
And neither are you. But I have been aware of the Pentagon controversy for over a decade. I would have seen this factoid quoted and re-purposed in the 9/11 lore. This is the first I've seen it, because you are making it up, or lying.
You make the claim, you defend the claim.
Find the articles and reports with interviews of the air-traffic controllers that said they were in the control tower looking with eyes (or with binoculars) at the incoming plane and losing sight of it just before they see the explosion smoke.
+++ Your impatient third comment
You wrote: "The jet was on radar the whole flight, even though ATC lost track for a few minutes."
It appears your failings in understanding basic concepts isn't limited to Newtonian physics, but extends into the realm of radars.
Radar tells you of an object in the sky, but not its identifier, heading, speed. For that information, you have the transponder, which were turned off. Ergo, even their own radar was not identifying the blips as specifically AA whatever.
You wrote: "The whole radar track could be traced after the fact and it shows the whole flight."
(a) I could be confusing flights, but seems to me there is a brief spot where the plane was not on radar either.
(b) Two objects flying the same heading and in close proximity will be seen as one object. One plane ducking below radar while the other pops above radar same heading. Elementary input by military specialists into Hollywood movies.
You wrote: "The phone calls were not proven suspect in court."
Just dropping your hypnotic suggestion, does not make it so. Some of the calls that were alleged to have provided key details of the hijackings: (a) weren't connected; (b) had zero second duration; (c) were on aircraft that had no in-flight calling ability; (d) involved cellphones that could not make calls at high altitude with ground-based cell towers.
+++ Your impatient fourth comment
You wrote: "Again you dildo,..."
Let us pause here for effect. Let the ad hominem really stand out and sink in.
You wrote: "... for someone that pretends to know and respect science, you are totally ignorant of the meaning and validity of forensic evidence and hard science such as FDR recordings and DNA."
While you are totally ignorant about foot-dragging in the release of evidence -- such as FDR recordings -- being needed to complete its faking, but it wasn't without errors.
As for the DNA, it was remarkably easy to acquire from live passengers, pilots, hijackers, who disembarked from their aircraft in Ohio [their final disposal is outside the scope.] Thus, the only fragment DNA they had to figure out in the Pentagon shards were the ONI agents assigned to investigate the missing $2.3 trillion. For employment purposes, their DNA was already on file.
You've already been caught lying. You've been caught making hypnotic statements that you refuse to defend. You've already lost credibility with me and lurker readers.
Post the URL to the write-up about all that you've suggested here, essentially your sources for the FDR work and the DNA. I'll objectively consider it.
I'll not do your busy work of substantiating your position.
Mocking you: "You do not understand that the fact that you try to mock this Newtonian physics and substantiation for statements exposes that you are a non-scientific kook and a nutcase. And a dildo."
+++ Your impatient fifth comment
You wrote a shovel analogy: "Take a shovel and stick it upright into the ground. Now if you try to make it fall over by punching sideways its base in the ground (analogy to car hitting lightpole), you might break your hand and still have an upright shovel still standing there. But if you hit the very top of the handle, slapping it sideways (analogy to an airplane in the air hitting the top of the lightpole), you can easily make the shovel fall over without hurting your hand."
But when your hand is traveling at 500 mph before smacking the shovel that doesn't even have to be in the ground and could be dangling by a thread or levitated with magnetic energy, you would most certainly hurt your hand, maybe even severing it and your forearm from your body.
If you don't understand the physics, "so do not try to lecture people about physics."
Your stupidity on physics continued: "The force excerted on your hand is proportional to the force holding the shovel in the ground (or the lightpole base specifically designed to break away given X force), not the mass of the whole shovel or whole lightpole multiplied by velocity."
Wrong. The force on your hand is proportional to the velocity of the hand as it hits the shovel handle. The energy required to loosen the shovel from the ground is less than the energy impacted by the hand at its 500 mph velocity.
So in reality, your hand smacking that shovel at 500 mph could exert enough energy on the handle of the shovel to break it... while your hand and forearm disappear into bloody chunks... and the rest of the shovel flies some distance.
NASA is anal about keeping track of all tools and fasteners on space walks, because even a single loose nut off of a bolt at very high velocities (which orbiting objects travel) can slice holes into satillites, space stations, space craft, and missiles. In fact the very premise of the military's rail gun is to accelerate a small object to really high velocities that releases its energy (velocity-squared in the equation) on its target.
Regarding the parking lot video. Let's assume it was traveling at 20 mph and sustained damage to its plastic bumper (and knocked the pole down). If it had been traveling at 80 mph? Yes the pole would have been knocked down. But what damage would the car receive from the increase in energy? Maybe the whole front end of the car looks like it wrapped itself around the pole, which itself might not remain in one piece.
Now increase the velocity to 500 mph, as per the MythBuster Rocket Sled or S4 Sandia Crash videos. Granted, the breakaway pole isn't the steel of the rocket plow or the fixed concrete base, but energy acting equal-and-opposite would make the car and the pole unrecognizable.
You wrote as an attempted smear: "Again, you follow 'christian science' not real science."
I seem to know more about Newtonian Science (physics) than you do, so maybe Christian Science helps me see the Truth better than you.
In sum, it is not surprising at all that someone ignorant in phyics would claim that a freaking 757 at 500 mph could clip 5 light poles without substaining shattering and flight-crippling wing damage to make the aircraft less precise in its ONI-eradicating purposes and to leave wing pieces and fuel (then ignited) on the remainder of its path.
//
x438 Simon Falkner : people like you only quoted out of context
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "I would have seen this factoid quoted and re-purposed in the 9/11 lore." --- ANSWER: No people like you only quoted out of context what the atc people initially said when they saw the radar blip (we all thought it was a military plane) and never follow-up to correct your errors: https://www.911myths.com/index.php/Danielle_OBrien
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Radar tells you of an object in the sky, but not its identifier, heading, speed. For that information, you have the transponder, which were turned off. Ergo, even their own radar was not identifying the blips as specifically AA whatever." --- ANSWER: The transponder was not turned off right away, hence the radar track contains the identifying information for the first part of the flight, and because the radar track is uninterupted the whole flight, the rest of the track therefore also belongs to the same flight.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "...(a) I could be confusing flights, but seems to me there is a brief spot where the plane was not on radar either. (b) Two objects flying the same heading and in close proximity will be seen as one object. One plane ducking below radar while the other pops above radar same heading. Elementary input by military specialists into Hollywood movies." --- ANSWER: No there was no spot without radar. You are not acknowledging the evidence, you are ranting about faked evidence. Flight 77 was radar tracked the whole flight. Data matches the FDR.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Just dropping your hypnotic suggestion, does not make it so. Some of the calls that were alleged to have provided key details of the hijackings: (a) weren't connected; (b) had zero second duration" --- ANSWER: Flight 77 airphone calls were verified in court. One call identified as Barbara Olson lasted 0 seconds but her later calls went through without giving her identity. The person that talked to her identified who it was.
x440 Maxwell C. Bridges : jumping off your spinning carousel
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, The context for all of the air traffic controller quotes in reference to sight and seeing was: "observations from the radar screen."
I give you kudos that later it says: "Further, my colleagues at Reagan National Air Traffic Control Tower observed, from the windows of the Tower, and American Airlines Boeing 757 disappear below the skyline just prior to the smoke beginning at the Pentagon."
I put that into the category of embellishment. Why? At that point in time, ATC's at all of the nation's airports were (a) dealing with inserted radar blips from the military exercises and (b) were doing the unprecedented thing of having all aircraft land.
It said: "There was no situation when a standard airliner would traverse the skies around Washington, D.C. without strict approval by FAA Air Traffic Control."
ATC tapes were physically destroyed and distributed to different trash bins.
So we can't say what permission was and was not granted.
+++ from your impatient second comment
You wrote: "The transponder was not turned off right away, hence the radar track contains the identifying information for the first part of the flight, and because the radar track is uninterupted the whole flight, the rest of the track therefore also belongs to the same flight."
Wrong. Again maybe I have confused the four flights, but I seem to recall brief periods -- well after the transponder's were turned off -- when the aircraft was not on the radar but then re-appeared, and this is also playing out in the context of the military exercises that purposely inserted false radar blips.
+++ from your impatient third comment
You wrote: "No there was no spot without radar."
Wrong. Both before take-off and after crashing were without (below) radar. And there was a spot on their flight path, which you have already admitted to in this thread. The military exercises did not help.
You wrote: "You are not acknowledging the evidence,"
You are not presenting any evidence like URLs to the official reports on the flight paths and data recorders.
You wrote: "you are ranting about faked evidence. Flight 77 was radar tracked the whole flight. Data matches the FDR."
Already proven wrong.
The salent point you keep missing is that in all speculated scenarios with or without aircraft, the light poles needed to be staged. Fake plane: staging required. Real plane: staging required or plane would be knocked down well before the Pentagon wall (albeit probably messily sliding into said wall).
And that implies who had to be involved. Which is what you're stilted participation seems to be covering for.
And the Pentagon plane isn't even my hobby-horse. But my hobby-horse implicates the same players.
+++ from your impatient fourth comment
You wrote: "Flight 77 airphone calls were verified in court. One call identified as Barbara Olson lasted 0 seconds but her later calls went through without giving her identity. The person that talked to her identified who it was."
More hypnotic suggestion, because they were not verified in court.
If the alleged commercial aircraft had already landed [maybe with everybody sleeping from sleeping gas] and was swapped with drone aircraft, then the calls could be easily made and maybe did happen. But from the aircraft themself? Nope.
You are obviously a champion of Trump, because you emulate him in your lies, hypnotic suggestion, and fanciful imagination.
I'll be jumping off your spinning carousel, allowing you to crank a few more last comment spins on the discussion (a) so that you can have the last word, and (b) so that you can push my comments into the "Read more comments..." region.
//
x442 Simon Falkner : walls of ranting bla bla bla ignore the simple lesson about leverage
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "In sum, it is not surprising at all that someone ignorant in phyics would claim that a freaking 757 at 500 mph could clip 5 light poles without substaining shattering and flight-crippling wing damage to make the aircraft less precise in its ONI-eradicating purposes and to leave wing pieces and fuel (then ignited) on the remainder of its path." ---- ANSWER: Your walls of ranting bla bla bla ignore the simple lesson about leverage and the video of the car knocking down the lightpole - there is no issue. I never claimed that the jet hit the lighpoles without any damage; I claimed that it could easily knock them down, as observed. The wings could very well have been damaged and made it less precise, but this happend within the last 2 seconds before impact so there was no issue
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Wrong. Both before take-off and after crashing were without (below) radar. And there was a spot on their flight path, which you have already admitted to in this thread." ---- ANSWER: This is just mumbo-jumbo.
x444 Maxwell C. Bridges : damage to the wings from hitting the light poles at high velocities: that is the issue
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, I cannot resist this quick reply (but will be signing off for the night after posting this. I promise.)
You wrote: "I never claimed that the jet hit the lighpoles without any damage; I claimed that it could easily knock them down, as observed."
Knocking the light poles down isn't the issue. The damage to the wings from hitting the light poles at high velocities: that is the issue. A simple physics problem that you don't understand, so try to ignore or make light of.
Further, if we get down to details on where the light poles landed, they also aren't so physics compliant with expectations of what a 500 mph impact would cause in terms of direction and distance they are flung and damage they also receive.
Your impatient second through fourth comment (so far) do not rise to the level requiring further rebuttal from what was already discussed. They're just you trying to lamely cherry-pick my words and then distract with something completely unrelated.
You should really learn how to (a) author off-line in an editor before pasting into the discussion, or (b) how to use SHIFT-ENTER SHIFT-ENTER to create paragraphs so that all of your rebuttals could be in one single comment.
As a result, you are guilty of spamming.
Because you know I'll be leaving. If you have one rebuttal to this, great and make that comment. But if something else dawns on you, do a post-edit on that one comment with your additional thoughts. Do that each time a new idea or rebuttal points occurs to you.
Otherwise, your multiple comments in a row indicate spamming and insincerity.
//
x446 Simon Falkner : Adam and Craig are both full of shit
2024-04-28
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "You are not presenting any evidence like URLs to the official reports on the flight paths and data recorders." --- ANSWER: Again, you cannot disagree with reports because you do not think they exist. There are official reports about the FDR and radar, but most of the research comes from people in the truth movement because of BS by pilots for truth which you have indicated that you know. This goes back nearly 15 years.
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "Already proven wrong."---- ANSWER: No you claimed ignorance about any research on the radar and FDR, and you claimed it faked. You are now having a hard time keeping track of your lies
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges said "More hypnotic suggestion, because they were not verified in court." --- ANSWER: Yes they were accepted as evidence in the Moussaoui trial in 2006. Olson's calls went through as an unknown number: https://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls
American Airlines Flight 77 Calls - 911myths
911MYTHS.COM
American Airlines Flight 77 Calls - 911myths
American Airlines Flight 77 Calls - 911myths
We Are Change L.A.
·
Maxwell C. Bridges Adam and Craig are both full of shit. We have gone over their nonsense and nauseum for years and they refuse acknowledge evidence that counters their narrative. Images of plane debris including landing gear struts inside the Pentagon yet they just blow it off saying it's planted with zero evidence let alone the logistical impossibility of such a ridiculous claim. They are not serious researchers they just want to push an agenda because that's how they get relevance. If they acknowledge that they are wrong then their entire worldview crumbles and their total existence is now in question
Simon Falkner
Darin Harvey The name of this group is very appropriate and efficient. Gets right to it, sums it up, no extra words..
Simon Falkner
Maxwell C. Bridges What hit the Twin Towers in your opinion? The official flights with hijackers?
x448 Maxwell C. Bridges : "retard" is acceptable right from the title of the group
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Simon Falkner, make a new thread or make a new posting with your question.
When the word "retard" is acceptable right from the title of the group, then all forms of insult and libel are valid from the onset. Might as well not even have group rules.
//
x450 Nelson Martins : retard group
2024-04-28
Nelson Martins
Maxwell C. Bridges https://www.facebook.com/groups/389111007865542/permalink/7158937437549498/
x452 Maxwell C. Bridges : a poor-man's defamation against Mr. Craig McKee and Mr. Ruff
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Nelson Martins, So is this group intended to be a poor-man's defamation against Mr. Craig McKee and Mr. Ruff?
//
x454 Darin Harvey : what hit the Pentagon?
2024-04-28
Darin Harvey
Maxwell C. Bridges so what hit the Pentagon? Are you going to avoid the question
x456 Maxwell C. Bridges : asked and answered on a different thread
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, as moderator, you are being quite rude. Your question was asked on a different thread, and answered in that thread. I am but one person, not a team or a spawning-bot. My view of the FB discussion showed a comment from Mr. Nelson Martins worthy of a response. Are you, Mr. Darin Harvey, jealous that I chose to insert some text to Mr. Martins instead of immediately to you?
Let's not pollute this thread with Pentagon theories that have been already addressed. I'll also not debate the same topics on a multi-front forum, owing to my uniquely human failings.
Let's get on to what this thread is about. "Are you going to avoid the question?" (How'd you like that? Me, picking up your ammo, reloading, and firing it back.) The question was what this group is about.
//
x458 Nelson Martins : Mr. Magoo and Ruffy Puffy Poopy Pants are low-hanging fruit
2024-04-28
Nelson Martins
Maxwell C. Bridges poor? have you looked at the number of Mckee followers? Are you kidding? Mr. Magoo and Ruffy Puffy Poopy Pants are low-hanging fruit, if that was the sole intention of this group. Aside the fact that even if we were, we would only be defaming the defamation con-artist against 9/11 victims and victims families.
Nelson Martins
Maxwell C. Bridges "Let's not pollute this thread with Pentagon theories that have been already addressed" The name of the group clearly says '9/11 No Planers are Retards', that means, idiots who believe magical government hoaxes were inserted in Sept 11th, that none of the 4 planes were authentic or hijacked by terrorists.
x460 Maxwell C. Bridges : two different threads with the same question
2024-04-28
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Nelson Martins, your reading comprehension isn't that great. The issue was that Mr. Darin Harvey was trying to engage me in two different threads under this posting with the same question that was already answered in the first thread.
The naming of the group reflects more on the admins and participants (for planes) that it does on the participants who legitimately question the veracity of the plane arguments.
//
x462 Nelson Martins : some stupid fat millennial redneck
2024-04-28
Nelson Martins
Maxwell C. Bridges there's never been a legitimate question or position to be skeptical of the veracity of the airliners. You don't have a benefit of the doubt, and never did. What? Because some stupid fat millennial redneck who misread and misappropriated Operation Northwoods as a perfect substitute for what 9/11 was, disproportionately? Your comprehension of reality is worse than my reading
https://youtu.be/nvh3kFkZ_E8?si=BVZmLwcWswYXtKnh
Part 18: FGNW Discussions with Craig McKee, Adam Ruff, 911 Revisionist
x464 Craig McKee : when people behave civilly and respect each other’s opinions
2024-04-14
Craig McKee
it’s ideal when people behave civilly and respect each other’s opinions. But this assumes that the people involved are authentic.
In the first decade after 9/11, our movement did a great job of exposing how the official story can’t be true. We didn’t have to agree on every piece of evidence, but we did agree on the need to expose the gaping holes in the official story. The result was a movement that was gaining momentum.
But even as we made these gains, forces were organizing against us, poisoning our fight for truth from the inside. Using infiltration, disinformation, distraction, and psychological manipulation, they chipped away at some of our most indispensable evidence.
Where 9/11 truth activists try to create doubt about official pronouncements with the goal of exposing truth, operatives want to create doubt about what we’ve unearthed with the goal of suppressing truth.
the cabal, which I believe is a COINTELPRO operation.
Do we have to agree with them on what evidence is valid? Jelmi wants us to abandon any evidence we don’t “agree on” no matter how strong that evidence is. If we aren’t unanimous about it, it has to go (the WTC evidence isn’t subject to this standard, apparently).
They might create a team of operatives who would gain credibility in one area of 9/11 research, like the WTC evidence, and then have those people turn to the Pentagon to push what is essentially the government’s cover story. These operatives would be sure to frequently mention their reliance on “the scientific method.” Finally, they’d accuse those who point out this pattern of being divisive.
+++
x466 Maxwell C. Bridges : Sincerity and objectivity are the important qualities
2024-04-17
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. McKee, You bring up important points to consider in the 9/11 discussion.
You wrote: "... the cabal, which I believe is a COINTELPRO operation." You continued later (with my clarification): "They (the PTB) might create a team of operatives who would gain credibility in one area of 9/11 research, like the WTC evidence, and then have those people turn to the Pentagon to push what is essentially the government’s cover story. These operatives would be sure to frequently mention their reliance on 'the scientific method.' Finally, they’d accuse those who point out this pattern of being divisive."
As part of "the scientific method," the conclusions of a hypothesis -- whether or not validated -- need to revisit any assumptions made at the onset (a) to see if the assumptions remain valid and (b) to see if modifying those assumptions to be more real-world changes the conclusions.
Thus, Mr. McKee, once you were clear about the COINTELPRO cabal hindering the Pentagon discussions, your assumptions about the cabal in their original area of 9/11 research where they gained credibility requires a new review and re-evaluation. The poisoning from a COINTELPRO-influenced cabal would have been evident in their original area of 9/11 fame (WTC). SPOILER: It was.
Case in point with regards to the WTC: the cabal made no effort to explain WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. Success in blocking those discussions entirely! And even on the nano-thermite front, the cabal may have speculated that NT was involved, they do not speculate into probable chemical mixtures and placement in the structure to account for vaporization of metal pans and trusses and dustification of concrete (and office content) that happened with a noticably reduced decibel level. [Nevermind those pesky under-rubble hot-spots.]
You wrote: "[I]t’s ideal when people behave civilly and respect each other’s opinions. But this assumes that the people involved are authentic."
I think "sincere" is a better word in this case than "authentic."
I mean, just because someone who participates provides, say, a copy of his driver's license or thumb-print to authenticate they exist in the real-world doesn't mean that they are sincere in the position they champion.
Sincerity and objectivity are the important qualities.
//
x468 Craig McKee : every detail right or not, they are pushing controlled demolition
2024-04-17
Craig McKee
Maxwell, when I use the word "authentic," I don't mean that they are giving their true name. I mean that they are really what they represent themselves to be. For example, I do not believe that Wayne Coste is authentic - that is I don't believe he is truly a truth seeker who is on the same side as me. While I would often find "sincere" to be an excellent word to use, there are times when it doesn't express what I want. Someone like Colin Doran may be sincere in opposing the "inside job" position, but that does not address whether he is authentic in presenting himself as a regular guy rather than as a government agent.
As to your view about the cabal's WTC efforts, I will repeat what I've said many times. Whether they've got every detail right or not, they are pushing the controlled demolition position, which I think has been proven. I don't see the value in taking them on in this area. I am revealing how they have used the credibility they appear to have been given by other truthers to sabotage our efforts in other areas.
I see the mini-nuke or DEW debate as a distraction and a quagmire that I think will completely grind out movement to a halt if we all get into it. I'm exposing the EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS deceptions being spread by this group to ultimately poison the movement to death. From a strategic point of view, the course you suggest makes no sense to me. I choose to focus on the areas that clearly expose the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal to use the Pentagon to divide us. They also want the evidence that proves government complicity to be neutralized. I won't let this happen. Following the course you suggest would only make their lives easier, and I won't let that happen either.
x470 Maxwell C. Bridges : the cabal's poor WTC destruction analysis
2024-04-18
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. McKee, You wrote regarding the cabal's WTC efforts: "... Whether they've got every detail right or not, they are pushing the controlled demolition position, which I think has been proven."
So easily you brush off the cabal's poor WTC destruction analysis, "whether ... every detail right or not." Does your opinion change if "few of the details are right"? The details of their controlled demolition position are so thin and vague upon inspection, it could not be a benefit to anyone in court, which is a form of sabotage as well.
I mean, imagine a related 9/11 case somehow finally gets to court and the family member cries on the stand about "controlled demolition killing their loved one." Upon questioning of this and other expert testimony, the message becomes "controlled demolition using nano-thermite." But on cross-examination, the lawyer references all sorts of factoids debunking NT, maybe data-mined directly from my blog and zoom presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth. Case gets lost, because those bringing it to court did not take their research, analysis, and educated speculation to the level required to prove it.
On the other hand and before-hand, if, through our efforts, FGNW becomes the validated concensus primary-mechanism-of-destruction, then the expert testimony message becomes "controlled demolition using exotic nuclear weapons killed their loved ones", which has a different and even greater public resonance.
You wrote: "I see the mini-nuke or DEW debate as a distraction and a quagmire that I think will completely grind out movement to a halt if we all get into it."
I disagree. I think it will free a log-jam in the bowels of the 9/11 Truth Movement around the globe, constipated by the slow-walking and incomplete measures of the cabal, Woodsian-DEWers, and other COINTELPRO, and will bring relief by finally getting a true consensus mechanism of destruction that followed the scientific method where "none of the relevant evidence is ignored" (Dr. David Griffin) and that opened discussions to clear up related but clogged 9/11 spinxters (at the Pentagon). No court case can be won without it.
So, not a distraction; instead, the main show in the center ring.
Also, it won't be a quagmire. How so?
FGNW has aleady won. Already accepted as valid by the 9/11 Truth Movement is the evidence of fission (2 dust reports) and fusion (tritium report). Already accepted as valid are the NIST/FEMA videos as well as the evidence in Dr. Judy Wood's work. And then there's Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, that the naysayers cannot even acknowledge, let alone address. Plus we have the inability of the competing theories to defend themselves and address all the evidence and buildings.
All major skirmishes that could possibly discredit FGNW have already been been fought and won (my humble efforts this last decade plus), and any attempt to re-hash have URLs and copy-and-paste to knock down quickly to keep on track... Ok, ok, I have to admit that a surprising number of victories were forfeits from no-shows, gatekeeping, bad faith debaters, and blackhole treatment particularly from 9/11 celebrities. But also a surprising number of drama queens LOUDLY dinging their own integrity and reputations with hypnotic suggestion followed by proclaimations of "Go away! I won't read what you write! I won't read your references! I'll delete any further messages from you!"
Instead of a zoom conference overflowing with participants, as but two examples, both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff decline (and block me on FB and substack.) So far, no one is willing to zoom defend DEW.
Again it won't be a quagmire. Although FGNW will go through the motions required by the token and faux opposition, FGNW can actually claim victory right now, in this moment. You know it.
You wrote: "I'm exposing the EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS deceptions being spread by this group to ultimately poison the movement to death."
Me, too! Only I'm exposing it on initial WTC front where the cabal supposedly built its credentials. You're exposing it on their secondary WTC front.
You wrote: "From a strategic point of view, the course you suggest makes no sense to me. I choose to focus on the areas that clearly expose the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal to use the Pentagon to divide us."
Bruh. The shoddy and incomplete WTC analysis even more "clearly exposes the infiltration of the movement and the efforts by the cabal ... to divide us." Look, they let some theories fester that they could have decisively debunked (but didn't); they prop up other half-baked theories that don't go the distance; and they blatantly blackhole nuclear discussions.
From a strategic point of view, my course calls out the opposition. One by one, it ought to create converts, but typically exposes agendas and dings reputations for their lack of objectivity and integrity (because FGNW is dangerous to their reputations and they're running away.) Your Pentagon cabal gets dispatched before the pentagon is even considered. You ought to be thanking me.
You wrote: "They also want the evidence that proves government complicity to be neutralized."
Exactly. Nothing screams "government complicity" quite like the revelation that 9/11 had nuclear components at the WTC, even if Mossad was boots-to-the-ground.
You wrote: "I won't let this happen."
Then don't. Get on board with FGNW.
You wrote: "Following the course you suggest would only make their lives easier, and I won't let that happen either."
*beeb* *beeb* You lost me there, Mr. McKee. Not sure who the "they" is w.r.t. "their lives easier."
Whether we're talking the cabal or the US government, a 9/11 Truth Movement woken up to the stark, clear, obvious validity of WTC nuclear components will not make "their lives easier". [Evolution in 9/11 understanding and apologies are their only viable outs to maintain any semblance of integrity and reputation.]
To be clear about my suggested course, I'm saying that the cabal is weakest on the WTC front, the science. Figurative nuclear fallout from their non-efforts and deceitful misdirections -- unless they evolve and apologize -- will put a nuclear crater in the middle of their reputations that also guts their credibility and reliability on the Pentagon. "Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large."
So in my suggested course, I'm just trying to have a rational discussion "DEW versus NT versus FGNW." My premise is documented, so if the cabal follows in Dr. Griffin's footsteps, they ought to be able to debunk it section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph, providing its wrong. If it's right, their objectivity ought to allow them to admit such. [FTR, neither DEW nor NT are documented w.r.t. composition, input, output, placement. Not nearly enough scientific analysis and speculation.]
Lo and behold, instead what do I get? Go re-read Mr. Ruff's responding email to my invitation to have him serve as a BIASED moderator to a "DEW verus FGNW" zoom discussion.
Mr. Adam Ruff called me "an unstable dangerous person." Unstable? Is that because I'm not psyops controlled nor overly influenced by faux-consensus? Dangerous, because FGNW without really even trying tends to ding the integrity and objectivity of its (insincere and not genuine) opposition. The sincere opposition? In the light of FGNW's Truths, the sincere ought to become its followers and champions and nuclear energize their other endeavors into 9/11 (and subsequent global crises). "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
[Hope the 2-minute TED talk video works. It is all about the importance of the "first follower" as demonstrated by the lone-nut crazy dancer at a concert and how the first follower made it virally acceptable for others to crazy dance. I'm the lone-nut on FGNW in need of first follower.]
https://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement
My near term agenda is to get my first followers and disciples, and have the FGNW virally spread from there.
P.S. Although Mr. 911R has been baiting me into discussion, his substack blocking of me demonstrates that he is not sincere in having a rational discussion. He is sincere in being an energy vampire and be a distraction for your forum. So out of respect to you and this forum, I won't engage directly here.
Mr. 911R has an "RFC to NIST" bot-glitch, a poorly written subroutine repetitively called that he thinks is worthy of being a new goalpost added to the middle of the playing field. Yet, he refuses to dig a hole for his RFC goalpost by providing the URLs to the RFC guidelines and to the NIST submission process for such. I mean, if I had that simple information, I would write up the RFC to NIST about FGNW according to the guidelines and submit it, just like I did for IC911; no problem-o. But without that simple URL and information on what is expected in the submission, Mr. 911R is simply requesting busy-work like the energy vampire that he is.
//
+++
x472 Adam Ruff : agree that the "unity at all costs" tactic
2024-04-15
Adam Ruff
So Craig,
You make a number of important points in this article. I agree that the "unity at all costs" tactic is being used against us and it is sucking people in that are otherwise well meaning and sincere. Part of the problem is that many of these well meaning and sincere individuals just don't know the pentagon evidence very well and they don't understand how crucial it is for the perps to suppress that evidence. These well meaning individuals are woefully naïve about the cointelpro tactics that the government uses on a regular basis. They assume, quite mistakenly, that everyone who claims to be a truther really is one. That assumption can prove fatal for a movement like ours. Look for example how quickly trolls and discussion hijackers pounce on every article you write Craig. That is not an accident. I recommend others take a stroll through your other articles and pay attention to the people who come in and immediately attempt to hijack the discussion. Those are either witting or unwitting cointelpro agents operating there. I lean toward them being real operatives because of their characteristics. Allow me to quote from the 8 traits of a disinformationalist rule #8:
"8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin."
Notice who is quickest to comment on your threads Craig and also pay attention to how quickly they reply to comments. For example today when I made a comment to 9/11 Revisionist he was able to reply almost immediately. Pay attention to what they say though and notice in particular their attempts to change the subject. Allow me to quote from the 25 rules of disinformation:
"17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues."
x474 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff claim to be truthers. Neither of them are
2024-04-17
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Beloved Latter-Day Lurker-Readers,
I applaud Mr. Adam Ruff for quoting the "time constant" bonus trait from "Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist" by H. Michael Sweeney copyright (c) 1997, 2000 [that is copied here: https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2009/07/eight-traits-of-disinformationalist.html ]
Alas this same "time constant" trait is evident with Mr. Ruff's participation, and how quickly and deftly he "#17 changes the subject" and cranks several distracting carousel spins about "YOU'RE hijacking the discussion" with two different participants to really poison Mr. McKee's substack discussion.
I'm sure Mr. Ruff is disappointed that my on-topic contributions are several days late.
Trait 4 of the disinformationalist: "Teamwork. ... Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength."
On display here, Mr. 9/11 Revisionist (911R) champions quite poorly the (proven-by-me disinfo) premise of Woodsian-DEW. He spams the discussion, because doesn't relate his (repetitive and canned) message to the threads under which he posts. In turn, this triggers Mr. Ruff, his teammate in dilution.
Mr. Ruff wrote: "These well meaning individuals ... assume, quite mistakenly, that everyone who claims to be a truther really is one."
Exactly.
Both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff claim to be truthers. Neither of them are, from my personal experience with them across various forums.
Trait 1 of the disinformationalist: "Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility."
Avoidance is part and partial to both Mr. 911R and Mr. Ruff, both who block me on Facebook and substack, and do not desire email discussion.
Recently, I've been floating the idea of a zoom discussion "DEW versus FGNW" (FGNW is my 9/11 hobby-horse). Mr. 911R was invited to participate, and Mr. Ruff was invited to be a BIASED moderator/participant, given he's been antagonistic to both theories.
Mr. 911R wrote through e-mails (cherry-picked here): "Your condescending tone in the opening of your email, just proves that you're a disingenuous troll and not worth my time... There is absolutely no reason for me to get into a discussion that is inferior to the evidence presented [in Dr. Judy Wood's book]... Your FGNW premise is based on speculation, end of story... I'll not have my time wasted by you, as that is exactly what you are - An energy vampire - https://youtu.be/_Dk1YGQjBo8 and https://youtu.be/4A7BLMA1LIw and thus I'll not entertain you in my substack comments or on my FB..."
RECOMMENDATION: The two energy vampire videos are pretty funny and offer an accurate reflection of Mr. 911R's efforts.
Mr. Ruff recently wrote through e-mail: "Your bait is declined... [Y]ou can just go away. I want nothing to do with you or your madness. ... I do not wish any contact with you. ... I do not wish ANY engagement with you about it... Rational discourse is not possible between us nor is it welcomed. Go away!... From here forward I am deleting all messages from you..."
FTR, (1) This is why Mr. Ruff is addressed in the third-person; and (2) the failing is entirely Mr. Ruff's that "rational discourse is not possible between us nor is it welcomed." It isn't as if I haven't tried.
+++ POST-EDIT 2024-04-18 +++
The reply-comment to this from Mr. 911R on 2024-04-17 is a lame chatGPT-bot copy-and-paste with minor-edit and sentence re-ordering of bot-database entries that were already deployed several times in exchanges with me (on Facebook, via e-mail, in substack.)
Playing along, his concerns were addressed point-by-point. The conversation, whether on substack or through e-mail, is supposed to advance.
But Mr. 911R is a carnie energy vampire, always cranking carousel spins while remaining shallow, unspecific, and repetitive. "RFC to NIST" is a great example.
Mr. 911R thinks that "RFC to NIST" is the ultimate goal. The way Mr. 911R repeats it again and again and again, this new goalpost seemingly has to be planted and cemented right into the middle of the DEW vs. FGNW playing field! When you ask him for the URLs to the RFC guidelines and to the NIST submission process ("dig a hole for your RFC goalpost") which would prove such to be a real thing with a real process, the 911R chatGPT-bot hasn't the depth to pony-up except to meaninglessly parrot "RFC to NIST", "RFC to NIST", "RFC to NIST"...
I would gladly write up the RFC to NIST about FGNW according to the NIST guidelines and submit it. [I did a similiar re-write for IC911; no problem-o.] But without guidelines or a place to submit it, this has some appearance of "busy-work" that Mr. 911R will promptly ignore.
//
x476 9/11 Revisionist : i have found you and your research lacking
2024-04-17
9/11 Revisionist
Maxwell, my dear - You and I have interacted more than enough on various platforms and i have found you and your research lacking, wonderful how you project what I have accused you for. A limited hangout of note you are.
You've been researching your FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons for 20 years, yet no one knows of you or your work.
After 20 years, you should be so certain of your "evidence" that you would have taken some actual action, yet you have not. Why?
Put your money where your mouth is....
RFC (request for correction) to NIST.
Or take your pick out of 23 NIST subcontractors and SUE them for science fraud.
NO ONE has to date except 2 professors in 2007...
Not even "architects for an engineered truth" has filed "molten metal or thermite" in their RFC to NIST - my pleasure for bringing that to your attention after you've been "studying" 9/11 and the COINTELPRO agents for 20 years.
Now run along - There is a Mason meeting you need to get to.
I bid you adjure...
x478 Maxwell C. Bridges : "RFC to NIST" is a bot-glitch, a poorly written subroutine repetitively called
2024-04-18
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Beloved Latter-Day Lurker-Readers,
Mr. 911R is not sincere, and certainly doesn't want rational, open-minded, and objective discussion. If he did, he wouldn't block me on his substack or delete my scholarly rebuttals there.
In my efforts to be a good net-izen of Mr. McKee's substack, I have endeavored to engage Mr. 911R off-list such as on his substack and through e-mail.
Although another Woodsian-DEWer says that Mr. 911R is a real person with whom he's had zoom discussions, all of my written interactions with Mr. 911R point to ChatGPT-bot.
Mr. 911R and I have exchange emails in recent weeks. He's so shallow, repetitive, and unknowledgable even in his Woodsian-DEW understanding (let alone FGNW he feebly calls without foundation "lacking"), that I believe I'm dealing with a chatGPT-bot. Specifically, were it not for some minor sentence alterations and word ordering, Mr. 911R's lame comment is by-near a copy-paste from his lame e-mail, already addressed and answered.
"RFC to NIST" is a bot-glitch, a poorly written subroutine repetitively called and that he thinks is worthy of being a new goalpost added to the middle of the playing field. Yet, he refuses to dig a hole for his RFC goalpost by providing the URLs to the RFC guidelines and to the NIST submission process for such. I mean, if I had that simple information, I would write up the RFC to NIST about FGNW according to the guidelines and submit it, just like I did for IC911; no problem-o. But without that simple URL and information on what is expected in the submission, Mr. 911R is simply requesting busy-work like the energy vampire that he is.
//
Part 19: FGNW Discussions with Mary Maxwell, Chris Bergier, Susan Serpa, Alfred Mr. Magaletta
x480 Maxwell C. Bridges : tensions increased
2024-05-03
Maxwell C. Bridges
Woodsian-DEW misbehavior
Dear Ms. Serpa and Mr. Magaletta,
I apologize if the tension in yesterday's Boston 9/11 Truth meeting increased by my defense of my speaking time from Norman's interruptions and attempts to talk over me with DEW talking-point distractions.
I wasn't planning on speaking, but as an adherent to Truth, lies are my trigger. Of all the ironies, Norman -- the consummate Woodsidan-DEWer -- was misrepresenting Dr. Wood's evidence by making a plural of "engines melted", when her book only had a single "engine melted," which upon inspection wasn't even that, but a mistake from her website that she had been informed about and should have corrected on the website before re-publishing in her book. The mistake was: no engine was melted, because the design of fire truck in question had its engine mounted much further back in the chassis. A sagging truck grill does not equate to a melted engine.
FTR, it is furthest from my intentions to (orally) re-hash in your forum the debates that have already transpired from elsewhere. That's why I save my receipts and re-publish to my venues. This is most useful when such debates were disinfo carousel spins by insincere operators; subsequent attempts at new spins can be shut-down, and insincerity and not-debating-in-good-faith exposed.
What has been my intention, particularly since beginning my zoom 9/11 participation, is to draw Woodsian-DEWers into off-list discussions in an appropriate venue (to be public.) A venue of their choice and ownership, or my blog, my substack, my facebook, my e-mail.
Naive and trusting me?! I just can't help but delude myself with the notion that sincere Woodsian-DEWers would acknowledge its criticism and grab onto the theory (FGNW) that can address Dr. Wood's evidence with an actionable, operational, power-able, nuclear-based mechanisms of destruction and is in the category of DEW.
In other words, my agenda is to convert the DEWers (and nukers and NTers) into disciples of exotic fourth gen nuclear devices.
To that end and to demonstrate my earnestnes, I've been trying to line up participants (and observers) for a zoom "DEW versus FGNW" discussion. On the FGNW side, I fully expect to be outnumbered by the Woodsian-DEWers. Were it not for no DEWer volunteers so far.
Another irony is that Norman has already declined to participate in such a zoom "DEW versus FGNW" discussion. Yet on Boston 9/11 Truth he was so eager to engage me, he was willing to instigate bad behavior against me in the disinfo long-ploy to have his bad behavior get us both fouled out, and the FGNW topic deemed off-limits for Boston 9/11 Truth.
Because FGNW has already been through Norman's (and other's) Woodsian-DEW script and identified its major issues [email being the last two carousel spins], Norman blocks me from his substack and refuses to zoom debate... But his playbook does allow for disruption, distraction, and bad behavior in your forum.
On a slightly different topic, Mr. Magaletta, you lamented that you would like to see the 9/11 Truth Movement as large or larger than it was in its hay-day (2006). That is wishful thinking, and an outcome I don't want to see. Why? 9/11 happened two decades ago, and since then we've had several imperialistic wars, Sandy Hook etc., COVID/mRNA, and now Israel and Gaza.
What is possible though, is that the large and important student activism against Zionism receive a second pillar to their Israeli complaints with 9/11.
Namely, (1) AIPAC influence over US policies, (2) Mossad involvement with 9/11, (3) the validity of 9/11 nuclear components -- these are what can inspire 9/11 Truth in the activism against Israel-Gaza pogram. Data points in the same, very long, trend-line.
These are what will "nuclear energize" 9/11 Truth, but via fresh blood from within the anti-Zionism activism.
//
x482 Susan Serpa : the fractious dispute
2024-05-03
Susan Serpa
Fri, May 3, 2:17 PM
to me, Alfred
Thank you for your apology, but it I who needs to apologize for letting the fractious dispute get as far as it did. I have much to learn about being a moderator
x484 Maxwell C. Bridges : apologize for my exuberant participation and impatience
2024-05-30
to Chris
Dear Mr. Bergier,
I apologize for my exuberant participation and impatience during your Boston 9/11 Truth presentation that led to my interrupting you. I misunderstood the scope of your presentation, thinking it would be DEW-specific and not NT-debunking followed by DEW. Sorry.
I commend you on the NT debunking points. In retrospect, I had to debunk a few competing 9/11 theories including NT when I presented on FGNW, in order to prime minds to allow room for an alternative.
I found, however, that the portion of your presentation that went into DEW very lacking. You are almost as bad as Norman (9/11 Revisionist) in only being able to present Woodsian-DEW talking points. No speculative details into implementation, installation, or operation. Nothing that can be real-world power. Lots of dangling innuendo into DEW, with no details that would require researching outside of Dr. Wood's book. DEW is a broad range of weapons with a broad range in output. Dr. Wood's innuendo was limited mostly to EM emission, whereby frequency does matter (for transmission through atmosphere.) She doesn't talk about other DEW output: alpha-, beta-, gamma-, neutrons, etc. (FTR, EM emissions are the DEW of the recent cases in California and Hawaii.)
As you will see below, we had a brief e-mail exchange, but my last message was not responded to. For that, no harm, no foul. However, when you tried to hit me up with the same carousel spin in the discussion of your presentation [regarding URLs to all of Dr. Andre Gsponer's videos about 9/11], it means you didn't read my e-mail.
Your ongoing efforts into discovering 9/11 truth via DEW will only be bolstered when you have the objectivity to take it to the next level. How is it powered? What were its outputs? How was it installed and configured?
That's where FGNW comes into play.
I can give you a pass for not having read my FGNW thesis prior to my 2024-03-21 presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth. But your presentation indicates that you weren't paying attention during my presentation, didn't read my FGNW thesis, didn't re-watch my presentation, and didn't read my e-mail. That is "not debating in good faith."
Given that Woodsian-DEW isn't an end-station and you acknowledge this, then you should be on the look-out for the thesis that does address the evidence in Dr. Wood's book (and all over). Unless you can find real-world actionable details into Woodsian-DEW, you would be duty-bound to objectively consider and even champion FGNW going forward, because it has everything that Dr. Wood's work lacked.
FTR, the Hutchison Effect may be valid, but that doesn't make it applicable to 9/11. His videos are not 9/11 evidence, but simply dangling innuendo. And actual evidence from 9/11 -- such as the meteor -- can be explained by FGNW and not Hutchison. Neither Dr. Wood nor Hutchison (nor you) explain the evidence of fission from the dust, the evidence of fusion from tritium in the water samples, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
At any rate, please re-read the buried email rebuttal below, and maybe also read my thesis and re-watch more attentively my Boston 9/11 Truth presentation.
Looking forward to your conversion from Woodsian-DEWer into FGNWer. Only agents and really dense duped useful idiots try to claw back from a possible explaining over-arching premise (FGNW) in order to promote only Dr. Wood's book that has no conclusions and isn't an end-station.
I'm still very much open to a "DEW versus FGNW" recorded discussion with you and others, including Norman (9/11 Revisionist). Although his objectivity and sincerity is already shot to hell. He won't discuss with me legitimately; he blocks me on Facebook and Substack after errors and weaknesses were exposed in Dr. Wood's work that he can't even acknowledge except with repetitive and non-gating Woodsian-DEW talking points. He couldn't defend his work or premise in an email exchange, making him come across as half bot and half agent. He has already nixed any notion of participating in such a zoom discussion. Be careful of your company.
All the best,
// Maxwell C. Bridges
x486 Maxwell C. Bridges : the penalties of NDAs
2024-05-30
https://gumshoenews.com/why-should-dew-scientists-honor-a-non-disclosure-agreement/
Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, I apologize to Mr. Chris Bergier and latter-day lurker-viewers for my exuberant participation in and interruptions to Mr. Bergier's Boston 9/11 Truth presentation.
You wrote: "[I]n Bergier’s talk below, he happened to mention that Steve Jones was allowed to publish his theory of 9-11 because he had not signed a non-disclosure agreement. What! How can scientists sign a non-disclosure agreement, that is, one that prevents their knowledge or findings from being shared."
I think Mr. Bergier was wrong about Dr. Jones's NDAs. Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones most certainly was under NDAs. Since before I can remember, all who studied nuclear physics with aims of doing research or work in that field, whether for the government or private defense contractor, have NDAs with charges of treason and penalties including life-long incarceration or death.
So, how did Dr. Jones avoid the penalties of his NDAs?
First of all, recall that Dr. Jones had two main claims to fame in the 9/11 Truth Movement: [not in order] (1) He discovered energetic flakes only in the dust samples provided to him and speculated most erroneously into nano-thermite. (2) He supposedly debunked all forms of nuclear involvement in 9/11.
In both instances, Dr. Jones acted the disinfo agent to distract from 9/11's true destructive methods, which would implicate the US government and its agencies. Therefore, he was acting in behalf of the government who can selectively (and silently) absolve him of any perceived NDA transgression. [What penalties did he suffer? He was close to retirement, kept his BYU office, and could continue research; no harm and was made more famous.]
But were some lone NDA enforcer from the government not get the message and attempt to go after Dr. Jones for NDA transgressions, the details will reveal that technically no transgression happened.
(1) Dr. Jones certainly had no NDAs in place on nano-thermite, because much about thermite was already in the public domain. His work was entirely speculation with major gaps in NT performance (that Mr. Bergier rightly brings up.) NT can't explain the brissance of the destruction (which Dr. Jones then admitted it had to be mixed with something like RDX); NT can't explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (which Dr. Jones then admitted something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT.) NT doesn't explain WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, and its champions don't even try.
(2) Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones attempted to discredit all forms of nuclear involvement, but his arguments were stilted to public perceptions of nuclear weapons (large destructive yield, large blast wave, large heat wave, lots of radioactive material spread through the environment, etc.) He mentioned nothing that wasn't already in the public domain, and even there he purposely held back. He wrote about fission and thermonuclear devices (hybrid fission/fusion) and lamented how single devices would have taken out entire city blocks. He did not write about neutron nuclear weapons, a major and glaring omission. How so? Because such were the precedessors of all fourth generation exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW), which Dr. Jones and all other 9/11 Truth gatekeepers would not mention, consider, or as much as describe. Although such information is in the public domain, Dr. Jones undoubtedly had access to classified research that armed him with operational details whereby such disclosure would have been in violation of his NDA. His performance was a thumb to the steering wheel of what the 9/11 Truth Movement "should believe."
I have some issues with Mr. Bergier and his championing of Dr. Wood's work. Specifically, he agrees that Dr. Wood's book has lots of evidence but has no speculation, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, not an end-station. Her work is meant to be built upon and taken to the next level. Any sincere seeker of Truth -- knowing and acknowledging Woodsian-DEW limitations -- would be on the lookout for ~the~ subsequent premise(s) that do address Dr. Wood's collection of evidence and takes it to the next level. Mr. Bergier doesn't do that. How so?
On 2024-03-21, I presented the FGNW premise to Boston 9/11 Truth, where Mr. Bergier was in attendance and participated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
The presentation was based on a write-up of the same.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
Mr. Bergier had a subseqeunt e-mail exchange with me where his points were more than addressed. Given that neither he nor Dr. Wood have provided anything other than some vague notion of DEW much less specific implementation and installation "speculation" into something real-world, FGNW ought to be what he promotes now, because they are in the category of DEW and are nuclear powered with energy to spare, addressing all of Dr. Wood's short-comings.
I have reason to believe that Mr. Bergier wasn't really paying attention during my presentation. Based on his e-mail, I have reason to believe that he still hadn't read my premise to objectively consider its merits. Based on our verbal exchange in his presentation, I have reason to believe that he didn't even read my responding e-mails.
Case in point, the FGNW relies on the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, a reputable Swiss nuclear physicists and peer-reviewed in reputable science publications (several dozen publications in three times as many languages as most American's speak.) Mr. Bergier via e-mail tries to minimize Dr. Gsponer: "Give me a URL to Dr. Gsponer presenting his 9/11 findings." I wrote back: "No can do, because Dr. Gsponer -- to my knowledge -- hasn't written or said publicly anything about 9/11." His peer-reviewed research (in the decade leading up to 9/11) are what is important. Further, Dr. Gsponer probably has NDA's too, but his work wasn't revealing any technical operational details and was somewhat speculative talking about FGNW as "pure fusion", when today they are "hybrid fission-fusion". Whether pure- or hybrid-fusion, the final stage outputs are the same: in this case, targeted highly energetic neutrons.
At any rate, I was a bit annoyed for the verbal carousel spin from Mr. Bergier over information already addressed in the e-mail (proving he didn't read it.)
Mr. Bergier and Mr. Norman (9/11 Revisionist) have the same weaknesses. They are beholden to Woodsian-DEW talking points that are limited hang-outs and that they can't defend when cornered, nor can they be budged from to move understanding forward. FGNW is next-level Woodsian-DEW that they can't acknowledge and can only seemingly drag discussion backwards to an incomplete and inconclusive Woodsian-DEW. That's not being sincere or objective. (Mr. Norman also has me blocked on Facebook and substack, and was less than convincing and even somewhat insincere in our e-mail exchanges. He does not debate in good-faith.)
I admit that I championed: chemical-based explosives, then DEW from outside, then nano-thermite from inside, etc. On my second pass of Dr. Wood's book, it became clear there was lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, and no conclusions... but the set of evidence was wonderful and pretty damning to most 9/11 theory-du-jours. Not to FGNW, though.
Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, I do hope that you give adequate consideration and review of my thesis and earlier presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth.
//
Part 20: FGNW Discussions with Mary Maxwell, 9/11 Revisionist
x488 Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Bergier was wrong about Dr. Jones’s NDAs
2024-05-31
https://gumshoenews.com/why-should-dew-scientists-honor-a-non-disclosure-agreement/
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, I apologize to Mr. Chris Bergier and latter-day lurker-viewers for my exhuberant participation in and interruptions to Mr. Bergier’s Boston 9/11 Truth presentation.
You wrote: “[I]n Bergier’s talk below, he happened to mention that Steve Jones was allowed to publish his theory of 9-11 because he had not signed a non-disclosure agreement. What! How can scientists sign a non-disclosure agreement, that is, one that prevents their knowledge or findings from being shared.”
I think Mr. Bergier was wrong about Dr. Jones’s NDAs. Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones most certainly was under NDAs. Since before I can remember, all who studied nuclear physics with aims of doing research or work in that field, whether for the government or private defense contractor, have NDAs with charges of treason and penalties including life-long incarceration or death.
So, how did Dr. Jones avoid the penalties of his NDAs?
First of all, recall that Dr. Jones had two main claims to fame in the 9/11 Truth Movement: [not in order] (1) He discovered energetic flakes only in the dust samples provided to him and speculated most erroneously into nano-thermite. (2) He supposedly debunked all forms of nuclear involvement in 9/11.
In both instances, Dr. Jones acted the disinfo agent to distract from 9/11’s true destructive methods, which would implicate the US government and its agencies. Therefore, he was acting in behalf of the government who can selectively (and silently) absolve him of any perceived NDA transgression. [What penalties did he suffer? He was close to retirement, kept his BYU office, and could continue research; no harm and was made more famous.]
But were some lone NDA enforcer from the government not get the message and attempt to go after Dr. Jones for NDA transgressions, the details will reveal that technically no transgression happened.
(1) Dr. Jones certainly had no NDAs in place on nano-thermite, because much about thermite was already in the public domain. His work was entirely speculation with major gaps in NT performance (that Mr. Bergier rightly brings up.) NT can’t explain the brissance of the destruction (which Dr. Jones then admitted it had to be mixed with something like RDX); NT can’t explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (which Dr. Jones then admitted something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT.) NT doesn’t explain WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, and its champions don’t even try.
(2) Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones attempted to discredit all forms of nuclear involvement, but his arguments were stilted to public perceptions of nuclear weapons (large destructive yield, large blast wave, large heat wave, lots of radioactive material spread through the environment, etc.) He mentioned nothing that wasn’t already in the public domain, and even there he purposely held back. He wrote about fission and thermonuclear devices (hybrid fission/fusion) and lamented how single devices would have taken out entire city blocks. He did not write about neutron nuclear weapons, a major and glaring omission. How so? Because such were the precedessors of all fourth generation exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW), which Dr. Jones and all other 9/11 Truth gatekeepers would not mention, consider, or as much as describe. Although such information is in the public domain, Dr. Jones undoubtedly had access to classified research that armed him with operational details whereby such disclosure would have been in violation of his NDA. His performance was a thumb to the steering wheel of what the 9/11 Truth Movement “should believe.”
I have some issues with Mr. Bergier and his championing of Dr. Wood’s work. Specifically, he agrees that Dr. Wood’s book has lots of evidence but has no speculation, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, not an end-station. Her work is meant to be built upon and taken to the next level. Any sincere seeker of Truth — knowing and acknowledging Woodsian-DEW limitations — would be on the lookout for ~the~ subsequent premise(s) that do address Dr. Wood’s collection of evidence and takes it to the next level. Mr. Bergier doesn’t do that. How so?
On 2024-03-21, I presented the FGNW premise to Boston 9/11 Truth, where Mr. Bergier was in attendance and participated.
https://youtu.be/gN_27Xtq19o
The presentation was based on a write-up of the same.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
Mr. Bergier had a subseqeunt e-mail exchange with me where his points were more than addressed. Given that neither he nor Dr. Wood have provided anything other than some vague notion of DEW much less specific implementation and installation “speculation” into something real-world, FGNW ought to be what he promotes now, because they are in the category of DEW and are nuclear powered with energy to spare, addressing all of Dr. Wood’s short-comings.
I have reason to believe that Mr. Bergier wasn’t really paying attention during my presentation. Based on his e-mail, I have reason to believe that he still hadn’t read my premise to objectively consider its merits. Based on our verbal exchange in his presentation, I have reason to believe that he didn’t even read my responding e-mails.
Case in point, the FGNW relies on the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, a reputable Swiss nuclear physicists and peer-reviewed in reputable science publications (several dozen publications in three times as many languages as most American’s speak.) Mr. Bergier via e-mail tries to minimize Dr. Gsponer: “Give me a URL to Dr. Gsponer presenting his 9/11 findings.” I wrote back: “No can do, because Dr. Gsponer — to my knowledge — hasn’t written or said publicly anything about 9/11.” His peer-reviewed research (in the decade leading up to 9/11) are what is important. Further, Dr. Gsponer probably has NDA’s too, but his work wasn’t revealing any technical operational details and was somewhat speculative talking about FGNW as “pure fusion”, when today they are “hybrid fission-fusion”. Whether pure- or hybrid-fusion, the final stage outputs are the same: in this case, targeted highly energetic neutrons.
At any rate, I was a bit annoyed for the verbal carousel spin from Mr. Bergier over information already addressed in the e-mail (proving he didn’t read it.)
Mr. Bergier and Mr. Norman (9/11 Revisionist) have the same weaknesses. They are beholden to Woodsian-DEW talking points that are limited hang-outs and that they can’t defend when cornered, nor can they be budged from to move understanding forward. FGNW is next-level Woodsian-DEW that they can’t acknowledge and can only seemingly drag discussion backwards to an incomplete and inconclusive Woodsian-DEW. That’s not being sincere or objective. (Mr. Norman also has me blocked on Facebook and substack, and was less than convincing and even somewhat insincere in our e-mail exchanges. He does not debate in good-faith.)
I admit that I championed: chemical-based explosives, then DEW from outside, then nano-thermite from inside, etc. On my second pass of Dr. Wood’s book, it became clear there was lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, and no conclusions… but the set of evidence was wonderful and pretty damning to most 9/11 theory-du-jours. Not to FGNW, though.
Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, I do hope that you give adequate consideration and review of my thesis and earlier presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth.
//
x490 9/11 Revisionist : You are blocked on my socials
2024-06-03
9/11 Revisionist
Maxwell
I have worked through your website and found your research lacking and a poor attempt to muddle up what Dr Wood presents, just like the limited hangout which is Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth, Fetzer and the rest of the clown show.
You are blocked on my socials, as I will not be dragged into your childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks.
You state you’ve been researching 9/11 for over 20 years, yet you knew nothing of the lack of mention of thermite or “molten metal” in the RFC (request for correction) that AE911 filed AFTER Dr Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds file their SEPERATE RFC’s to NIST in 2007.
A multitude of evidence Dr Wood presents is not even discussed in your work and when Mr Bergier pointed out anomalies after your Boston 9/11 presentation, you had nothing to say in defense of anomalies that don’t fit your premise.
You are just another distraction trying to dilute and misrepresent what Dr Wood has brought to the table.
As anyone would know that has read her book and court filings and the 23 NIST subcontractors she sued, ARA and SAIC to be specific, as they were tasked with security and cleanup at ground zero, as well as writing scientifically fraudulent reports that made up the NIST Report, if successful in her court case, she would be able to depose these companies, as they specialise in psychological operations, development OF DEW and weather modification.
You, as with all the other detractors of the evidence presented by Dr Wood, have NEVER filed your own RFC to NIST or sued any of the subcontractors, so how about putting your money were your mouth is.
At the end of the day, you are only speculating, promoting another “conspiracy theory” just like the bomb, thermite and buried nukes / mini nukes and no one even buys into your conspiracy theory, as it all hinges on one paper, that has not even been proven that your so called exotic nukes even exist.
You sir are a limited hangout.
x492 Maxwell C. Bridges : your contribution to the discussion has been to be a lame-parrot of Woodsian-DEW
2024-06-18
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Norman, You wrote: "I have worked through your website..."
No, you haven't. My website hasn't been functional in quite some time. Maybe you are referring to my blog. But there again, you demonstrate that you haven't worked it, much less the FGNW article in question.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
The reason that I can make such bold assertions of what you haven't done: no details or specifics.
You continued your run-on sentence with: "... and found your research lacking..."
No, you didn't. If this were the case, you would have provided: details and specifics. Where does the premise come up short?
What about the re-used images both from Dr. Wood and from your (lame and confusing) substack? Are those lacking too? Because if so, then point the finger at yourself.
You continued your run-on sentence with: "... and a poor attempt to muddle up what Dr Wood presents,..."
Quite the bit of projection there, Mr. Norman. You -- like all members of the Woodsian-DEW disinfo team -- talk out of both sides of your mouth. You (all) claim that Dr. Wood's work is all about the evidence, and that its main strength is that it connects no dots and draws no conclusions. If you (all) are going to use that as a selling point, then it is you who "muddle up what Dr. Wood presents."
Dr. Wood has no conclusions only evidence. The task then becomes to identify the premise(s) that do address the evidence. This is what FGNW does, and your only (repeated) assessment is that you "found it lacking."
You continued your run-on sentence with: "... just like the limited hangout which is Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth, Fetzer and the rest of the clown show."
Nope, not just like them.
You wrote: "You are blocked on my socials, as I will not be dragged into your childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks."
"Childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks"? Prove it. Quote me. Prove your contention. I know you can't, because you were very quick to delete my comments from your socials. Nonetheless, I have the receipts of what I wrote to your socials (to be published when I feel like getting around to it.)
Ergo, Mr. Norman, if the "childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks" references me -- such as in this very sentence -- calling you a "liar," it isn't libel or defamation when it is so easily proven as a validated character trait.
You wrote: "You state you’ve been researching 9/11 for over 20 years, yet you knew nothing of the lack of mention of thermite or “molten metal” in the RFC (request for correction) that AE911 filed AFTER Dr Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds file their SEPERATE RFC’s to NIST in 2007."
It isn't a crime to know little about something. Not my hobby-horse.
Pay attention to this turn-about. If RFC (request for correction) is such an important thing to you, how come you've never submitted your RFC to Dr. Wood and encouraged her to (a) fix all of the mistakes in her book, (b) perform valid and more detailed research into both DEW and nuclear means, and (c) speculate into design, implementation, and configuration.
Until that version 2 of her book appears, all you're doing is clawing back from a full-fledge premise (FGNW) that addresses the evidence (not just) in Dr. Wood's work and parking your readers understanding at unripe concepts and dangling innuendo. Disinfo at its finest, your efforts.
You wrote: "A multitude of evidence Dr Wood presents is not even discussed in your work and when Mr Bergier pointed out anomalies after your Boston 9/11 presentation, you had nothing to say in defense of anomalies that don’t fit your premise."
You don't make a very good distinction between actual evidence in Dr. Wood's book and the multitude of dangling innuendo that doesn't address the evidence and doesn't even come close to working prototypes.
My work doesn't have to address every single nugget from Dr. Wood's book, because not all are even nuggets of truth and are simply things she name-drops without details or specifics (just like your MO.)
Further, the anomalies that Mr. Bergier pointed out don't even have working explanations (or even reasoned speculation) from Dr. Wood, from you, or from Mr. Bergier. No one on your Woodsian-DEW disinfo team ever offers up valid concepts on the nature of the destructive devices, where they were placed, and how the anomalies were created.
My work proves that FGNW were "the primary mechanism of destruction." Doesn't rule out secondary means, which could be NT, a Hutchison device, and the kitchen sink from the top-floor restaurant.
Had you read my premise, as you claim, you'd know this.
You wrote: "You are just another distraction trying to dilute and misrepresent what Dr Wood has brought to the table."
Dr. Wood's work stands on its own as "just another distraction trying to dilute and misrepresent what Dr Wood has brought to the table."
I represent Dr. Wood's work actually quite accurately as "evidence that needs to be addressed" but "having no conclusions or dot-connection", so can't be propped up as an END STATION, which is exactly the purpose of YOUR disinfo efforts. Dr. Wood (among others in the 9/11 Truth Movement) did a monumentally shitty job of researching DEW and nuclear means, period, end of story.
Were you sincere, you'd be able to acknowledge these limitations and these precise areas where your matron saint's work "is lacking."
You wrote: "As anyone would know that has read her book and court filings and the 23 NIST subcontractors she sued, ARA and SAIC to be specific, as they were tasked with security and cleanup at ground zero, as well as writing scientifically fraudulent reports that made up the NIST Report, if successful in her court case, she would be able to depose these companies, as they specialise in psychological operations, development OF DEW and weather modification."
Blah, blah, blah. Dr. Wood knew she didn't have standing to be making the court files. And owing to the flaws of her work -- no dot-connection, no conclusions --, her court case was destined to fail.
You wrote: "You, as with all the other detractors of the evidence presented by Dr Wood, have NEVER filed your own RFC to NIST or sued any of the subcontractors, so how about putting your money were your mouth is."
You, as with all the other disinfo Woodsian-DEW minions, do not have the integrity to acknowledge the flaws in Dr. Wood's work that necessitate a revision of that work that would provide appropriate research and descriptions into DEW and nuclear means that then have half a chance of addressing the evidence.
You have NEVER filed your own RFC to Dr. Wood to have its many flaws corrected. So how about putting your money were your mouth is.
You wrote: "At the end of the day, you are only speculating, promoting another “conspiracy theory” just like the bomb, thermite and buried nukes / mini nukes and no one even buys into your conspiracy theory, as it all hinges on one paper, that has not even been proven that your so called exotic nukes even exist."
At the end of the day, you are NOT even speculating. You are only promoting an incomplete and substandard work that neither Dr. Wood nor any of her minions have been able to cobble together into a valid "conspiracy theory."
You claim that my theory is all hinged on one paper from a reputable nuclear scientists peer-reveiwed and published in a reputable science journal: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Your claim is false. My theory addresses the evidence of fission, the evidence of fusion, the evidence of high energy, the evidence in the audio signature, etc., all of which Dr. Wood does not.
However, if we take your comment at face value that my theory is all hinged on one paper, you have proven yourself incapable of reading that paper and mining it for applicable nuggets of truth. As with my work, you demonstrated nothing that indicates you read Dr. Gsponer's work; you certainly provided no details or substance that might prove Dr. Gsponer wrong, let along my extapolation of that work into my premise.
In short throughout our correspondence, I have provided you with bullet lists of the main issues with Dr. Wood's work, yet you don't have the integrity to acknowledge or debunk them. Maybe if you provided me with the specific flaws in my work, I could address and maybe correct them.
Alas your contribution to the discussion has been to be a lame-parrot of Woodsian-DEW with only the ability to drop hypnotic suggestion about FGNW somehow being lacking.
You wrote: "You sir are a limited hangout."
Your project and hypnotic suggestion have no power here.
You, sir, are insincere and a disinfo agent.
//
Part 21: FGNW Discussions with ChatGPT
x494 Maxwell C. Bridges : Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center
2024-08
You said:
Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. The evidence for nuclear components leaks out of the entire 9/11 record. The overkill energy of the observed sudden complete decimation of the towers is a clue, purposely missed.
x496 ChatGPT : part of a broader range of conspiracy theories
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The claim that fourth-generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001, is part of a broader range of conspiracy theories about the events of that day. However, this theory, like many others related to 9/11, is not supported by credible evidence.
Here are some points to consider:
Official Investigations: Multiple official investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report and studies by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), have concluded that the towers were brought down by the impact of the hijacked airplanes and the subsequent fires. These fires weakened the structural steel, leading to the collapse of the buildings. No credible evidence supports the presence of nuclear devices or any other exotic weaponry.
Lack of Radiation Evidence: Nuclear weapons, even advanced fourth-generation ones, would leave behind significant radiation signatures. There were no detectable radiation levels at Ground Zero or in the surrounding areas that would suggest a nuclear detonation occurred.
Destruction Mechanism: The collapse of the towers can be explained by the structural damage caused by the planes and the fires that ensued. The "overkill energy" mentioned in such theories is better understood as the result of gravity acting on the massive structures after they were compromised.
Scientific Consensus: The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the findings that the collapse was due to a combination of structural damage and fire. The theories involving nuclear weapons have been thoroughly debunked by experts in structural engineering, physics, and demolition.
Misinterpretation of Data: Some conspiracy theories about 9/11 often involve the misinterpretation or selective use of data, such as seismic readings, temperature data, or the presence of certain materials. These interpretations are not consistent with the evidence when considered in full context.
It is crucial to rely on credible sources and scientific consensus when evaluating such claims. The idea of fourth-generation nuclear weapons being used in the 9/11 attacks does not stand up to scrutiny and lacks support from any credible evidence or expert analysis.
x498 Maxwell C. Bridges : definition of a true Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon
2024-08
You said:
By definition, a true Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW) is supposedly pure fusion, which is very hard to initiate without assistance. In this paper, FGNW refers to "late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons", which are hybrid fission-fusion.
A conventional chemical-based charge is used to smash fissile material together in the fission stage. The fission stage generates the requisite heat for the fusion stage.[1]
A thermo-nuclear weapon releases about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects.[2]
A "neutron-bomb" instead allows the neutrons to escape. Its fusion stage releases 80% of its energy in the spherical emission of high-energy neutrons and gamma rays, and 20% is the thermal heat and blast waves. [3] [4]
A FGNW takes the neutron bomb to its next level of evolution. It releases 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion: not just spherical, but also semi-spherical, quarter-spherical, to variable angle cone or wedge fanning out from the ignition point. Technically, FGNW are in the category of DEW (directed energy weapons). Only 20% of its already tactical nuclear yield is in the form of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.[5]
FGNW are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response within their targets. Depending on design goals, FGNW can:
Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
Heat the surface of a material.
Accelerate or compress a material.
Transfer momentum to a material.
Heat the volume of a material.
Energize a working material.
Forge and project missiles.
Form and send high-velocity jets.
Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.
Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse (EMP) and prompt or delayed radiations.
Words like "pulverization", "dustification", and "decimation" were used to describe the WTC towers' destruction. This certainly applied to the concrete and drywall, where trapped water molecules instantly turn to extremely hot steam whose expanding volumetric pressure microfractures.[6]
As for metal such as the metal pans and trusses supporting the concrete, when the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted, launching a shock-wave into the material, hence the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust samples.
Because neither the fission stage nor the fusion stage are designed for a destructive blast wave with the FGNW, this changes expectations for its audible effects[7] and for its fissile signatures in the outcome.[8]
x500 ChatGPT : an interesting concept within the field of speculative weapons technology
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The detailed description you've provided of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) and their theoretical capabilities, particularly in the context of the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001, aligns with a specific narrative often found in alternative or fringe theories regarding 9/11. However, it's important to address these points critically and within the broader context of established scientific understanding and evidence from the 9/11 investigations.
Key Points to Consider:
FGNW and Directed Energy: The idea that FGNW could act as directed energy weapons (DEW) with targeted, non-spherical emissions of neutrons is speculative and not supported by mainstream science. DEW and nuclear weapons are fundamentally different in their operation and effects. Traditional nuclear weapons release their energy in a more indiscriminate fashion, unlike the highly controlled and directed effects suggested by the FGNW hypothesis.
Pulverization and Dustification: The destruction of the WTC towers, described as pulverization or dustification, was a result of the enormous kinetic energy involved in the collapse. The collapse released vast amounts of energy as the buildings fell, pulverizing concrete and other materials. The observed phenomenon does not require the introduction of nuclear or directed energy effects to be explained. Instead, gravity-driven collapse and the energy released as each floor impacted the one below are sufficient to explain these effects.
Iron Spheres in Dust: The presence of tiny iron spheres in the dust has been cited by some as evidence of high temperatures, such as those produced by thermite or other exotic reactions. However, these spheres can also result from the combustion of office materials and the structural steel under the conditions present in the fires and collapse. The spheres do not necessitate the use of nuclear weapons.
Lack of Audible or Seismic Evidence: The claim that FGNW would produce different audible and seismic signatures is speculative. The collapses of the WTC towers were extensively recorded in terms of sound, seismic activity, and video. These recordings do not show evidence of nuclear detonations, which would have produced unmistakable and much more severe effects.
Fissile Signatures: Even if a nuclear weapon was designed to minimize blast effects, it would still produce some form of radioactive signature. Extensive testing and monitoring for radiation at Ground Zero did not reveal any levels that would indicate a nuclear detonation. The types of radiation and residues expected from nuclear weapons were simply not present.
Conclusion:
While the description of FGNW as advanced hybrid fission-fusion devices that could theoretically deliver directed energy effects is an interesting concept within the field of speculative weapons technology, there is no credible evidence to suggest that such weapons were used on 9/11. The destruction of the WTC towers has been thoroughly studied and explained through more conventional means: the impacts of the planes, the resulting fires, and the structural failures that led to the collapse. Claims of nuclear or directed energy weapons being involved are not supported by the physical evidence, scientific analysis, or the extensive investigations conducted after the attacks.
The established scientific consensus remains that the towers collapsed due to the reasons outlined in the official reports, and alternative theories have not provided verifiable evidence to the contrary.
x502 Maxwell C. Bridges : trend for not mentioning significant findings
2024-08
You said:
The USGS collected dozens of dust samples. The tables in the USGS analysis of their WTC dust samples are noteworthy, because the expected fissile by-product elements [11] and their decay elements are present in the dust.
Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html
The second image of a table snippet documents strontium and its decay elements as having been present in the dust.
Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html
More important is the omission of an explanation in the report for these elements in the dust. The trend for not mentioning significant findings began with "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.[12]
Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data.[13]
The following is based on Mr. Jeff Prager's conclusion.
The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.
The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.
The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products.
The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.
x504 ChatGPT : interpretation of the USGS dust sample data as evidence of a nuclear explosion is not supported by the broader scientific community
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The claims you're discussing regarding the presence of certain elements in the dust samples collected by the USGS (United States Geological Survey) from the World Trade Center site are often cited by proponents of the theory that nuclear devices were involved in the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. These claims generally focus on the presence of elements such as strontium, barium, thorium, uranium, and others, which are associated with nuclear fission.
However, it's essential to approach these claims critically and within the broader context of established scientific understanding.
Points to Consider:
USGS Dust Sample Analysis:
The USGS conducted extensive analysis of the dust and debris following the collapse of the WTC towers. The presence of elements like strontium, barium, thorium, and uranium in the dust samples is not unusual or unexpected. These elements occur naturally in the Earth's crust and can be found in various building materials, including concrete, steel, and other construction materials that made up the WTC.
Natural Occurrence vs. Nuclear Signatures:
The presence of elements such as barium and strontium in the dust does not necessarily indicate a nuclear event. These elements are commonly found in various industrial processes and materials. For example, barium is used in a wide range of applications, including concrete production, drilling fluids, and as a component in certain types of glass.
Strontium is also naturally occurring and can be found in materials such as gypsum (used in drywall) and other building products.
Fission Products and Nuclear Decay:
The interpretation that these elements are evidence of a fission pathway (such as uranium decaying into thorium and helium, then into lithium) is speculative and not supported by the broader scientific community. The decay products of uranium and thorium are well understood, and while these elements may be present in trace amounts, the concentrations and patterns described do not align with what would be expected from a nuclear detonation.
In a true nuclear explosion, specific isotopic ratios and other telltale signs (like the presence of short-lived radioisotopes) would be detectable. These were not found in the dust samples analyzed by the USGS.
Review by Jeff Prager:
Jeff Prager's interpretation of the USGS data represents a non-mainstream view that has not been substantiated by peer-reviewed research or accepted by experts in the field of nuclear physics. His conclusions are based on correlations that do not necessarily imply causation and are not supported by the broader scientific community.
Absence of Radiation Evidence:
A nuclear detonation would leave behind significant radiation signatures, including gamma radiation, radioactive fallout, and specific isotopic signatures. The environmental and health monitoring conducted in the aftermath of 9/11 did not detect such signatures, which strongly argues against the presence of nuclear devices.
Scientific Consensus:
The scientific consensus remains that the WTC towers were brought down by the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires, which led to structural failures. The presence of certain elements in the dust can be explained by the materials that were present in the buildings and the processes that occurred during and after the collapse.
Conclusion:
The interpretation of the USGS dust sample data as evidence of a nuclear explosion is not supported by the broader scientific community. The presence of elements like strontium, barium, and uranium in the dust is consistent with the materials that were present in the WTC and does not indicate a nuclear event. The lack of radiation and other nuclear signatures further undermines the nuclear device theory.
The claims put forward by Jeff Prager and similar theorists are speculative and have not been validated by experts in relevant scientific fields. The collapse of the WTC towers can be explained by the well-documented and understood effects of the plane impacts, fires, and subsequent structural failures.
x506 Maxwell C. Bridges : Tritium is a building block
2024-08
You said:
Tritium is a building block of nearly all FGNW. This is why the "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" was hamstrung and scope-limited from the onset. The study can't be taken at face-value as the final word on tritium, how much was really present, or what the tritium sources could be. [14] [15]
However, the study proves that not only was tritium present, but that its very presence required interference be run to control the narrative and steer public consideration away from its true significance.
x508 ChatGPT : presence of tritium at the WTC site in trace amounts does not indicate the use of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons or any other nuclear device
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The presence of tritium in the aftermath of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse has been cited by some as potential evidence for the use of nuclear weapons, particularly Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW). Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is indeed a component in many nuclear devices, including some fusion-based weapons. However, it's essential to critically evaluate the claims regarding the study of tritium levels at the WTC and what they actually suggest.
Key Points Regarding Tritium and the WTC:
The Tritium Study:
The study titled "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies to determine whether tritium was present at the WTC site following the 9/11 attacks.
The study found trace amounts of tritium in the water samples taken from the site. However, the levels detected were very low and consistent with what could be expected from non-nuclear sources.
Possible Sources of Tritium:
Tritium is not exclusively produced by nuclear reactions; it is also found in various industrial and consumer products, such as emergency exit signs, watch dials, and other luminous items that use tritium-based phosphorescent materials.
The tritium found at the WTC could have originated from these sources, which were likely present in the buildings and could have been released during the collapse.
Interpretation of the Tritium Levels:
The low levels of tritium detected do not support the hypothesis of a nuclear detonation. If a nuclear device had been used, the tritium levels would likely have been much higher and accompanied by other radioactive isotopes and signatures of a nuclear explosion.
The study did not find any evidence of such isotopes or other indicators that would suggest a nuclear event occurred.
Allegations of Study Limitation:
Claims that the study was "hamstrung" or deliberately limited in scope to obscure the presence of tritium as evidence of a nuclear event are speculative. There is no credible evidence to support the idea that the study was compromised in this way.
The study's methodology and results were consistent with standard environmental monitoring practices. The trace levels of tritium found were within the expected range for non-nuclear sources.
Scientific Consensus and Radiological Monitoring:
Extensive radiological monitoring was conducted in the aftermath of 9/11 by various agencies, including the EPA. No significant levels of radiation or radioactive isotopes indicative of a nuclear explosion were found at Ground Zero or the surrounding areas.
The scientific consensus remains that the destruction of the WTC was caused by the impacts of the hijacked planes and the resulting fires, not by nuclear devices.
Conclusion:
The presence of tritium at the WTC site in trace amounts does not indicate the use of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons or any other nuclear device. The tritium levels detected were consistent with non-nuclear sources, and the study's findings do not support the hypothesis of a nuclear event.
Claims that the tritium study was deliberately limited or that it was part of a cover-up are speculative and not supported by credible evidence. The overall body of scientific research and radiological monitoring conducted in the aftermath of 9/11 provides no evidence for the use of nuclear weapons in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
x510 Maxwell C. Bridges : air laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles
2024-08
You said:
The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles associated with high temperatures. Many different metals of very fine particles were found in the samples, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States. There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass.[16]
"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."~Dr. Thomas Cahill.
"Nuclear Fizzle" from one or more of the tandem FGNW is the most likely source.[17]
The debris pile had many Hot-Spots and exhibited Extremely High Temperatures, that FGNW can address with fizzled nukes but that other consensus 9/11 theories, such as Nano-Thermite, cannot address and therefore do not address.
x512 ChatGPT : presence of fine particles and high temperatures at Ground Zero is consistent with the collapse and fires that followed the plane impacts
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The observations about high temperatures and the presence of extremely fine particles at Ground Zero have fueled various alternative theories regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center, including the idea that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) or "nuclear fizzles" were involved. Let's break down these points to understand them better.
1. Fine Particles and High Temperatures:
The collapse of the WTC generated significant amounts of dust and debris, including very fine particles. These particles included metals, silica, and other materials from the building's structure, contents, and the materials involved in the intense fires.
The presence of fine particles, including metals and silicon-containing aerosols, is consistent with the high temperatures reached during the fires. The collapse and subsequent fires generated extreme conditions that could produce fine particulate matter through the mechanical and thermal breakdown of materials.
2. Dr. Thomas Cahill's Findings:
Dr. Thomas Cahill's studies identified the presence of fine aerosols and unusual particle compositions in the air at Ground Zero. His work highlighted the extremely high temperatures and the unusual conditions present at the site.
However, these findings do not necessarily point to a nuclear event. The high temperatures could have been the result of the prolonged fires fueled by the building's contents and the large amount of combustible materials present in the towers.
3. "Nuclear Fizzle" Hypothesis:
A "nuclear fizzle" refers to a failed or incomplete nuclear detonation, where the nuclear chain reaction starts but does not fully propagate. This scenario would still release radiation and leave behind clear nuclear signatures, such as specific isotopic residues and high levels of radioactivity.
The hypothesis that a nuclear fizzle caused the high temperatures and fine particles at Ground Zero is speculative and lacks supporting evidence. The environmental monitoring conducted after 9/11 did not detect the levels of radiation or nuclear residues that would be expected if a nuclear fizzle had occurred.
4. Hot Spots and Extremely High Temperatures:
The hot spots and high temperatures observed in the debris pile at Ground Zero can be explained by the large amount of burning materials, the ongoing combustion, and the insulation provided by the debris, which allowed pockets of fire to burn at high temperatures for weeks.
While the temperatures were indeed high, they do not require a nuclear explanation. Other sources of heat, such as the burning of large amounts of jet fuel, office materials, and the chemical reactions occurring within the debris pile, can account for the observed temperatures.
5. Comparison with Nano-Thermite:
Nano-thermite is another alternative theory often cited in discussions about the WTC collapse. Nano-thermite is a highly energetic material that could theoretically generate high temperatures, but the evidence for its use at Ground Zero is also debated and not conclusively proven.
Neither the nano-thermite theory nor the nuclear fizzle hypothesis is supported by the mainstream scientific community, which maintains that the observed phenomena can be explained by the plane impacts, fires, and resulting structural failures.
Conclusion:
The presence of fine particles and high temperatures at Ground Zero is consistent with the collapse and fires that followed the plane impacts. While these conditions were extreme, they do not require the invocation of nuclear weapons or a "nuclear fizzle" to be explained.
The mainstream scientific and engineering consensus is that the collapse of the WTC was caused by the combination of the impacts and the subsequent fires, without the need for exotic explanations. Theories involving nuclear weapons or nano-thermite remain speculative and are not supported by the evidence collected from the site.
x514 Maxwell C. Bridges : FEMA/NIST best video cameras betrayed the true nuclear evidence
2024-08
You said:
The FEMA/NIST captured video footage of the mangled state of steel wall assemblies and internal support beams, all of which raise questions about the mechanisms of destruction, their placement, and the energy involved.
However, the video footage as a side-effect also caught real-time radiation emissions from the Ground Zero debris pile and specific pieces from the Fresh-Kills Landfill. The evidence is in the form of camera scintillation -- flashes or sparkles of light -- as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud.[18]
In some cases due to the close proximity of the video camera to the radioactive material, the video tape completely glitches out and is unviewable. This was probably unknown to the person running the camera until later playback, and may have contributed to the slow-walking of releasing the FEMA/NIST videos.
The video glitches underscore the nuclear nature of the anomalous pieces of steel.
9/11 - World Trade Center Recovery and debris removal part 4 of 6
https://youtu.be/xScpRFVVx4w.
At around 6:00 as the camera pans up and down, whenever it aims down, more scintillation appears in the lower half of the image that depicts the pulverized debris pile. Other instances in the video (such as around 12:00), the camera will have relatively few glitches, but as it pans over areas of the destruction, the lower portion of the image with the debris pile (and not the upper portion with standing structures) begin to have more white flashes or camera anomalies. When the camera pans over other areas of equipment and workers, not such scintillation.
Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10
https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291.
Notice how it affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
Right from the beginning are many anomalies pieces of steel whose twisted shapes suggest some form of volume heating of the material to make it suddenly pliable. One of many places the video camera suddenly experiences serious glitches is just before 46:00.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
28:51 A box column of a wall assembly exhibited a gash along 1/3 or more of its length and through the spandrel (thicker) area.[19]
1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.[20]
1:27:00 Column smoothly bent into a C-shape and smoothly bent steel.
1:39:00 and 1:57:00 Radiation affecting the video camera.
Video of the South Tower Dust Cloud
https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52
At about 0:52 the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.
The technology of FEMA/NIST best video cameras betrayed the true nuclear evidence that those of us raised on the snowy broadcast television of last century might not notice.[21]
The reader is given the assignment to browse their own collection of images and videos of 9/11 WTC destruction and postulate FGNW's abilities as being most likely to inflict such unique and anomalous damage.[22]
x516 ChatGPT : speculative and not supported by the available evidence
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The observations you've presented regarding video footage from Ground Zero and the alleged evidence of nuclear radiation are part of a broader narrative suggesting that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. These claims include the interpretation of camera scintillation, video glitches, and the condition of the steel as indicative of nuclear activity. Let's critically assess these points.
1. Camera Scintillation and Video Glitches:
Camera Scintillation: The flashing or sparkling effects, known as scintillation, are often attributed to various causes, including dust, debris, or environmental conditions that can interfere with the camera's sensors. In the chaotic environment of Ground Zero, where dust and smoke were pervasive, it’s plausible that these particles were the primary cause of the scintillation observed in the videos.
Video Glitches: The glitches and disturbances in the video footage could be caused by a range of factors, including electromagnetic interference from equipment on-site, damage to the cameras due to the harsh environment, or simply the poor condition of the recording equipment after exposure to intense heat, dust, and debris. There is no conclusive evidence linking these glitches to radiation from nuclear devices.
2. Condition of the Steel and Alleged Radiation Evidence:
Twisted and Bent Steel: The extreme damage to the steel, including bending and twisting, is often cited as evidence of extremely high temperatures. However, this can be explained by the intense fires fueled by jet fuel, office materials, and the collapse's kinetic energy. Structural steel can soften and deform under high heat, even without reaching the melting point, particularly under the immense pressure and stress from the collapsing buildings.
Volume Heating Hypothesis: The hypothesis that the steel was subject to "volume heating" from a nuclear event lacks supporting evidence. The conditions described could result from the fires and mechanical forces at play during the collapse. Additionally, no conclusive evidence of radiation or nuclear residues has been found to support this claim.
3. Radiation and Nuclear Evidence:
No Detected Radiation: Extensive environmental monitoring was conducted at Ground Zero, and no significant levels of radiation were detected that would indicate the use of nuclear devices. If nuclear weapons had been involved, there would have been clear signs, including specific isotopic residues and radiation levels far beyond what was observed.
FEMA/NIST Video Footage: The suggestion that FEMA/NIST footage inadvertently captured evidence of radiation is speculative. The anomalies observed in the videos are more likely due to environmental conditions and the limitations of the recording equipment, rather than evidence of nuclear activity.
4. Scientific Consensus:
The mainstream scientific and engineering consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by the impact of the planes and the resulting fires, which led to structural failures. This explanation accounts for the observed phenomena without invoking nuclear weapons.
The evidence collected, including the condition of the steel, environmental monitoring data, and video footage, does not support the theory that FGNW were used. The absence of radiation and nuclear residues is a significant counterpoint to the nuclear hypothesis.
5. Conclusion:
The claims regarding camera scintillation, video glitches, and the condition of the steel as evidence of a nuclear event at Ground Zero are speculative and not supported by the available evidence. Environmental and radiological data do not indicate the use of nuclear weapons in the destruction of the WTC.
The observed damage and phenomena can be explained by the well-understood mechanisms of the collapse, including the fires, mechanical forces, and the massive amount of debris. The theory of FGNW involvement remains outside the mainstream scientific understanding of the events of 9/11.
You are relying upon too much speculative Government-related reports that cannot be relied upon at face-value. The USGS report has data tables with many of the elements in the periodic table, including Uranium and its decay trace elements. The USGS report talks about some of the elements, but does not mention these obvious trace elements of fission.
2/2
x518 ChatGPT : presence of trace elements in the USGS report, including Uranium and its decay products, warrants careful consideration
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
I understand your concerns about relying on government-related reports, and it’s important to critically assess all sources of information, especially when dealing with complex and controversial events like 9/11. Let's address your points specifically regarding the USGS report and the trace elements of fission, including Uranium and its decay products.
1. USGS Report and the Presence of Trace Elements:
Data on Elements: The USGS report on the WTC dust samples indeed contains detailed tables listing various elements, including metals and other materials. These elements are part of the comprehensive analysis aimed at understanding the composition of the dust generated by the collapse.
Presence of Uranium and Decay Products: Uranium and its decay products, such as Thorium, Radon, and others, can be found in trace amounts in various environments, especially in urban areas where industrial materials are prevalent. However, the presence of these elements alone is not necessarily indicative of nuclear fission or the use of nuclear weapons.
2. Interpretation of the Data:
Trace Elements and Environmental Background: The trace amounts of elements like Uranium in the dust might be attributed to background environmental levels, industrial materials, or natural sources. Urban environments often contain low levels of such elements due to the use of building materials, industrial processes, and other factors.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation: The presence of trace elements that could theoretically result from fission processes does not directly imply that a nuclear event occurred. To draw such a conclusion, one would expect to see clear and consistent patterns of radiation, specific isotopic signatures, and higher concentrations than those found in typical environmental samples.
3. Omission of Specific Explanations in the Report:
Scope and Focus of the Report: The USGS report might not have focused extensively on Uranium and its decay products because these elements, in the concentrations found, were not considered unusual or indicative of a nuclear event. The primary focus of the report was likely on identifying materials that could explain the collapse and the health effects on first responders and the public.
Possible Reasons for Omission: The omission of a detailed discussion on these elements could be due to the fact that their presence was not out of the ordinary or was consistent with background levels. Alternatively, the focus of the report might have been on other elements and compounds more directly related to the collapse and fires.
4. Critical Evaluation:
Scientific Scrutiny: It’s important to apply scientific scrutiny to all data, whether it comes from government sources or independent researchers. Independent analysis and peer review are essential in verifying findings and interpretations.
Alternative Explanations: The presence of certain elements can have multiple explanations, including industrial contamination, environmental background levels, and other non-nuclear sources. A comprehensive analysis would consider all possible sources before concluding that a nuclear event occurred.
5. The Bigger Picture:
Need for Further Analysis: If there are concerns about the USGS report’s conclusions, independent analysis and peer-reviewed research could provide additional insights. This would help verify whether the trace elements found in the dust are consistent with nuclear fission or if they have more conventional explanations.
Broad Consensus: While it is crucial to question and critically assess all sources, the broad consensus among scientists and engineers remains that the collapse of the WTC was due to the impact of the planes, subsequent fires, and structural failures. The presence of trace elements like Uranium does not necessarily change this understanding without strong, corroborative evidence pointing to a nuclear event.
Conclusion:
The presence of trace elements in the USGS report, including Uranium and its decay products, warrants careful consideration. However, the available evidence, including the lack of significant radiation or isotopic signatures, does not support the hypothesis that nuclear weapons were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Independent verification and further scientific analysis would be needed to substantiate any claims to the contrary.
x520 Maxwell C. Bridges : anomalous features
2024-08
You said:
Lots of anomalous features when viewed alone could mean many things and not mean exclusively exotic nuclear devices (FGNW). But when these anomalous features are collected together, it isn't so easy to dismiss them and brush them off. There are no such things as coincidences, right?
x522 ChatGPT : it’s important to consider all anomalous features collectively, the interpretation must be grounded in evidence and sound reasoning
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The idea that anomalous features, when taken together, could suggest a broader pattern or point to a specific cause is a common approach in analyzing complex events. It's true that individual anomalies might be explainable by conventional means, but a collection of such features can sometimes indicate a different or less obvious cause. However, it's also important to be cautious about how these connections are made.
1. Patterns and Connections:
Human Tendency to Find Patterns: Humans are naturally inclined to find patterns and connections in data, especially in complex or traumatic events like 9/11. This can sometimes lead to seeing connections where none exist or interpreting random coincidences as meaningful.
Holistic View: Looking at anomalies collectively can provide valuable insights, but it’s essential to ensure that the connections are based on solid evidence and not just circumstantial or coincidental. Each anomaly should be rigorously analyzed to determine whether it can be explained by known phenomena before jumping to conclusions about an overarching cause.
2. Evaluating Anomalies:
Critical Assessment: Each anomalous feature needs to be critically assessed on its own merits and within the broader context. This involves understanding the limits of the evidence, the reliability of the data, and whether alternative explanations have been adequately considered and ruled out.
Cumulative Evidence: While a single anomaly might not be persuasive, a collection of anomalies can suggest that something unusual occurred. However, it's important that the evidence supports a coherent narrative that is consistent with the broader body of knowledge. For instance, if multiple anomalies can be explained by known physical processes (like structural failures, fires, or environmental conditions), then the hypothesis that they point to something exotic, like FGNW, becomes less compelling.
3. Coincidences and Probability:
Role of Coincidences: While it's often said that "there are no such things as coincidences," coincidences do happen, especially in complex events. The key is to differentiate between coincidental occurrences and those that have a causal relationship.
Statistical Considerations: In large, complex systems, what might appear to be an unlikely coincidence can actually be expected. For example, in an event as massive and chaotic as the collapse of the WTC, numerous unexpected and rare phenomena could naturally occur without implying a non-conventional cause.
4. Applying Scientific Method:
Hypothesis Testing: To move beyond speculation, it’s important to formulate testable hypotheses about the anomalies and then seek evidence that can confirm or refute these hypotheses. This is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry.
Peer Review and Consensus: Theories and explanations should undergo peer review, where experts in the field critically evaluate the evidence and reasoning. This helps ensure that the conclusions drawn are robust and based on sound science.
5. Alternative Explanations:
Known Explanations: Many of the anomalies observed in the aftermath of 9/11, such as the condition of the steel, the presence of certain particles, and environmental conditions, have been explained by known physical processes, including the intense fires, structural damage, and the collapse dynamics.
Exotic Explanations: Exotic explanations, like FGNW, require strong evidence, especially when they contradict established understanding. If such evidence exists, it should be evaluated rigorously, but the absence of clear, direct evidence makes these explanations less convincing compared to well-established theories.
Conclusion:
While it’s important to consider all anomalous features collectively, the interpretation of these anomalies must be grounded in evidence and sound reasoning. It’s crucial to differentiate between coincidence and causation, and to apply a rigorous, scientific approach when evaluating alternative explanations. The mainstream understanding of 9/11, supported by extensive research and evidence, remains the most robust explanation for the events that transpired. However, remaining open to new evidence and interpretations, as long as they are backed by credible and verifiable data, is also a key part of scientific inquiry.
x524 Maxwell C. Bridges : gold in the WTC-4 vaults
2024-08
You said:
What happened to the gold in the WTC-4 vaults on 9/11?
x526 ChatGPT : accounted for the vast majority of the gold
2024-08
ChatGPT said:
The gold stored in the vaults beneath the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, particularly in WTC 4, has been a topic of interest and speculation following the 9/11 attacks. Here's an overview of what is known about the gold in the WTC-4 vaults on 9/11:
1. The Presence of Gold in WTC Vaults:
Location: The gold was primarily stored in vaults beneath WTC 4, which was the South Tower of the World Trade Center complex. These vaults were operated by the Bank of Nova Scotia and held gold and other precious metals owned by various entities, including banks and governments.
Amount: Reports suggest that the vaults contained a substantial amount of gold, with estimates varying but often cited as around $200 million to $1 billion worth of gold and other precious metals.
2. Retrieval of the Gold:
Post-Attack Recovery: After the 9/11 attacks, recovery operations were conducted in the debris of the WTC site. The gold from the WTC 4 vaults was reportedly found and recovered in the weeks following the attacks.
Details of the Recovery: The recovery of the gold was carried out by workers and authorities as they cleared the debris. By November 2001, reports indicated that nearly all of the gold had been recovered from the site, with the remaining gold found in the rubble.
3. Speculation and Myths:
Rumors of Missing Gold: In the aftermath of 9/11, there were rumors and conspiracy theories suggesting that a significant portion of the gold had gone missing or had been secretly removed before the attacks. These rumors often cite the fact that much of the gold was quickly recovered as evidence of prior knowledge or insider activity.
Official Accounts: According to official accounts, the gold was not removed before the attacks but was buried beneath the rubble of WTC 4 and was eventually recovered. There is no credible evidence to suggest that any significant amount of gold was stolen or went missing.
4. Fate of the Gold:
Recovered and Accounted For: The gold recovered from the WTC 4 vaults was eventually returned to its rightful owners, including banks and other financial institutions. The recovery process was closely monitored, and the gold was carefully accounted for.
Final Tally: By the end of the recovery operation, nearly all of the gold was accounted for, with only a small amount unaccounted for, likely due to the destruction and chaos of the collapse.
5. Conclusion:
The gold in the WTC 4 vaults on 9/11 was buried beneath the rubble after the collapse of the towers but was later recovered and returned to its owners. Despite rumors and conspiracy theories, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that a significant portion of the gold was stolen or went missing. The official recovery efforts accounted for the vast majority of the gold, and it was eventually returned to the financial institutions and entities that owned it.
The story of the gold in the WTC vaults is just one of many facets of the complex and tragic events of 9/11, but the available evidence indicates that the gold was successfully recovered from the site.
Part 22: FGNW Discussions with Pete Davenport, Craig McKee, Bob Byron
x528 Maxwell C. Bridges : invite me on your zoom show
2024-09-19
https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/pfbid02rKy8jXgktbBteR8QmwSrnaT3ctSYNtLZjvCpTbQveJapbdr6YzQ9bU9ZBmdMqXyQl?comment_id=817916933747011&reply_comment_id=1028482292090600¬if_id=1726795338289127¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. McKee, Given Trump's performance, it wouldn't have mattered if Harris were fed the questions AND/OR had an earpiece feeding her factoids. Harris didn't win the debated for her well practiced answers, but for the scattered-brain performance of Trump. "Babies born at 9 months are being executed" and "illegal aliens are eating residents' dogs and cats." Priceless watching both Trump and his bought laptop Vance double-down on it.
If you want to complain about something, complain that Dr. Jill Stein hasn't been allowed to debate either one of them. That's the real cheat.
And when are you going to grow some testicles and invite me on your zoom show? You and Mr. Ruff have only had over a decade to review and vet my premise.
//
x530 Craig McKee : I will never invite you on my podcast to discuss your hobby horse
2024-09-19
Craig McKee
Maxwell C. Bridges I will never invite you on my podcast to discuss your hobby horse.
x532 Pete Davenport : a trip into the Twilight Zone
2024-09-19
Pete Davenport
Maxwell C. Bridges I agree the 9 month born babies being executed was a trip into the Twilight Zone and people eating cats and dogs happens everyday in certain countries and believable that some migrants have done so - but so much other things Trump could have used. But, as I am not a fan of his, I will leave it at that.
x534 Maxwell C. Bridges : exposed your asexual genitals on 9/11
2024-09-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, So the answer to my question "when are you going to grow some testicles and invite me on your zoom show?" is that you will never grow a pair of testicles, or ovaries. Really dings your reputation, objectivity, and open-mindedness on the 9/11 front. Hell, not just personally, but professionally as a so-called journalist.
As if you've never conducted a fair and objective interview with someone who did not speak your interests or views. It's not as if you won't have subsequent zoom shows and subsequent articles to set the record straight, should it not go the way of your beliefs.
The thing is, I'm not a hostile person and won't come unhinged in zoom like Mr. Ruff likely will.
I'll even let you pop my zoom cherry with regards to being on camera while I present and defend my 9/11 thesis.
Not to worry; my 9/11 thesis and its substantiation through the 9/11 record isn't catching you or Mr. Ruff off-guard. It isn't as if over a decade isn't enough time to have allocated 20 minutes to reading it [and identifying its typos.] Of course, if you tack on the time it takes to follow the footnotes into source material, particularly the FEMA/NIST videos, yes you'll add a few more hours. But you've already probably seen those videos, albeit not with the lens of exotic nukes. But there again, I've time-stamped just a few (of many) excellent examples that can be the basis for discussion. We could even discuss WTC-4.
But, NOOOOoooooouuuu!!!
You've exposed your asexual genitals on 9/11 [that my cognitive dissonance and naive & trusting nature wouldn't let me see didn't actually exist.]
This explains why you are so lame on the 9/11 Pentagon front and your so-called cabal. If you really wanted to "win" on that front and give the public the understanding they need [and the depth of the infiltrative disinformation], you'd have to wholistically view the cabal's efforts on all 9/11 fronts. Even without considering my 9/11 thesis as a solution, they did a slow-walk, limited hang-out job on everything WTC related. I mean, where do they explain how NT decimated WTC-4, or even gravity? Where do they try to explain how some wall assemblies were able to flatten-to-street level nine (9) stories of WTC-4's main edifice? Their reputations get dinged for such shoddy efforts before the Pentagon is brought up.
For that matter, where is your damn analysis in the other WTC buildings besides the big three?
Exactly. Some journalist you turned out to be.
Clearly, you don't really want to take the cabal to task for ALL of their disinfo misdeeds that would inform the public better on where to put their trust. You want to protect them and only ding them just a little tiny bit on the pentagon.
Shame on you, Mr. McKee. Shame on you.
//
x536 Craig McKee : your concern about my reputation
2024-09-19
Craig McKee
Maxwell C. Bridges Thank you for your concern about my reputation, but I think I'll be fine. It's interesting that you use the same taunting tactics, implying that I am afraid to deal with you, that cabal trolls do. You can spin my choice of focus if you like, but this approach will not pressure me into turning my attention, and devoting large chunks of my time, to your hobby horse.
x538 Maxwell C. Bridges : orchestrate a zoom ambush of FGNW
2024-09-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, I didn't realize that the cabal had taunted you into a discussion that you declined to participate in because you lacked the reproductive parts. Usually, they are the ones to cut and run while covering their neutered state.
Notice how they don't taunt me? They -- like you & Mr. Adam Ruff -- run away from me. It's because they know (a) that they can't defend their WTC thesis against those who studied it objectively, (b) that my 9/11 thesis is closer to the truth addressing a much wider swath of (anomalous) evidence, and (c) that I am sincere, articulate, reasoned, researched, educated, and not at all an unhinged nutcase or agent & teammate to some "mainstream" disinfo premise.
You should note the company I don't keep. I mean, my thesis is technically in the category of DEW, but do you see the "Normans" & "9/11 Revisionists" or any of the vocal Woodsian-DEWers or any "old school nukers" (a) acknowledging weaknesses in their position pointed out by me and (b) jumping onto my 9/11 thesis that lacks those weaknesses and takes both Woodsian-DEW and nukes to the next and proper level?
Over the last decade, I've asked you multiple times for 20 minutes of your time just to read my premise and perform the professional courtesy of identifying my typos, as I have done with you for every article you've written in the 9/11 space. My request was not a LARGE CHUNK OF TIME.
But even if & when it does become a larger time-suck, YOU NEED IT. You're lamely spinning in circles on the Pentagon, and are up against the organized cabal whose reputations and 9/11 nobility you can't fight... UNTIL their Achilles Heel at the WTC is pierced by the weaknesses that I've been pointing out for years now and you've been ignoring.
Nope, your reputation won't be fine, and we know it. Such lack of objectivity is unbecoming of a sincere seeker for truth and journalist.
If my hobby-horse is to be debunked, by golly I can't think of a better dynamic duo to achieve it than you and Mr. Ruff, who was bragging ten years ago that he already HAD debunked both nukes and DEW [but when finally cornered in a discussion, RAN AWAY, blocks on social media, and cries "STALKING" whenever something from me potentially crosses the ether of the internet to appear on his computer monitor.]
You two would be doing a huge favor to the entire 9/11 Truth Movement to get the nuke/DEW issues finally clarified, and debunked.
Two-against-me or even three-against-me if we count your zoom tech guy. You could even stack the zoom panel further in your favor with others of like mind, which reduces your personal burden FOR LEARNING SOMETHING NEW and having to apply so much journalistic research.
Seems like excellent odds for me and my 9/11 hobby-horse to have our asses handed to us. [Because Mr. Ruff's buttons are easily pushed, tell him that I call him "genital-less" too so he'll be triggered into wanting to totally set up the zoom ambush to glue-factory end my hobby-horse.]
... Ooops. On proof reading my words above, seems like maybe a little white lie slipped out when I wrote: "[I am] not at all an unhinged nutcase."
Got it right in the header to my blog: I'm a religious fanatic who is fanatical about Truth. That signifies a level of spiritual passion not to be under-estimated.
One side views as naive: my having been duped by and championing sequentially: chemical based explosives, single underground nukes, super-duper nano-thermite, Woodsian-DEW, nuclear-DEW, and now "exotic 4th gen nuclear weapons" technically in the category of DEW.
You're thinking: "Wow... what's this nut going to believe next? Reversed engineered off-world alien technology from Area 51?"
The flip-side views as open-minded and objective: my acknowledgement of the inherent weaknesses in a given "popular 9/11" premise necessitating -- not just me -- all sincere truth seekers continue evolution in 9/11 thought.
Mr. McKee, it saddens me that your (non-)actions prove you aren't enlightened and don't want to be enlightened, despite your vast internet fame and popularity in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
You didn't get to pop my cherry with regards to giving a Zoom presentation on my hobby-horse: Boston 9/11 Truth did that.
But you could pop my cherry with regards to being on camera in Zoom while dropping new apples from my hobby-horse. [Looking forward to Mr. Ruff spitting on me (and on his computer screen) when he sees me. Won't that be such an honor to behold particularly if he hits his camera.]
But, that right there is sincerity and passion writ large. I didn't have to agree to show my "Bruce Wayne," but such is my passion for Truth. When your zoom panel legitimately trounces one-by-one the pillars of the hobby-horse and signal its ending neigh, I will apologize (publicly) for having been wrong or having led people astray. Think of the emotional drama and truth resolution that your zoom panel will evoke! The syndication ratings will be through the roof!
There is some tiny bit of danger (to reputation) for you in this zoom ambush of exotic 9/11 nukes, but only in the remote case of (a) FGNW actually being to-date the most plausible 9/11 theory, ~AND~ (b) that you handle poorly this revelation. But if (a) and (c) if you handle the revelation properly, no worries, and it won't matter that the FGNW zoom ambush failed.
What's kind of disinfo game playing in all of this. This exchange we're having isn't about the (de)merits of my 9/11 theory that I have spent years shopping around precisely to have be legitimately debunked (or vetted). This exchange is about whether or not the discussion should even happen, and your total unwillingness as an alleged 9/11 Truther and journalist to participate, let alone host where you have home field advantage and can stack a zoom panel to ambush my hobby-horse. [That's solid positive ratings in the 9/11 community in that alone.]
Your own Pentagon premise would be nuclear-energized regardless of the results of the zoom ambush. Maybe that's what you are afraid of. Specifically, the discussion will undermine the WTC analysis provided by the cabal, which is what gave them street-cred to promote OCT Pentagon. The cabal's reputation will be severely dinged, which guilt-by-association or in-for-a-penny will impeach their Pentagon analysis.
Ergo, you don't want to orchestrate a zoom ambush of FGNW, because you don't want to impeach the cabal's reputation to help you decisively "win" the Pentagon debate.
//
x540 Craig McKee : love to drop everything
2024-09-19
Craig McKee
Maxwell C. Bridges Well, I'd love to drop everything and spend the next 20 minutes going through each and every one of your disingenuous digs. Instead, I'll leave you to focus on your preoccupation with genitals alone.
x542 Maxwell C. Bridges : cannabis-thinking about two different paths into your future
2024-09-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, "disingenuous digs." Quite possibly. The carrot of reason hasn't been working, so I thought I'd try those techniques to get you motivated. I can see where HybridRogue1 could derive so much pleasure from composing his flame wars back in the day.
But are all of them really "disingenuous digs," or do any of them have validity? Maybe the ones impugning your objectivity, open-mindedness, and journalism-chops should be taken seriously.
Here's me cannabis-thinking about two different paths into your future.
On path A, you continue to post-pone a legitimate discussion into FGNW, yet somewhere else in internet fame-dom, the premise gets watered and blossoms all over without you, casting shade onto you for missing the opportunity to be in on the ground floor and never recovering 9/11 relevance.
On path B, you host a legitimate discussion on the FGNW topic. You prove your journalism chops. Don't worry about the research, because I've already done it for you, provided references, even my raw research. The organization of my work suggests one-by-one topics for discussion, or "targets to aim at" for those on the zoom FGNW ambush panel to debunk.
On path B, regardless of the outcome, you demonstrate positively the qualities that I impugned above, and I apologize publicly for having defamed your character.
On path B, you obtain 9/11 relevance for being the host for the discussion that legitimately handles 9/11 nuclear involvement: vetted or debunked. You become the catalyst that allows the hobby-horse a valiant death in battle, or that allows the hobby-horse to roam vetted and drop freely its horse-apples through the thinking of 9/11 truthers and the greater public, and nuclear-energize many other 9/11 endeavors.
P.S. This election is about vaginas, so I thought the genital references were humorously appropriate... Purposely trying to get your panties into a twist, because reason wasn't working. Are they in a twist? Didn't think so. Most of the genital comments were actually aimed in a triangular fashion at Mr. Ruff. I know they trigger him. As half of your dynamic duo, he'll want to defend your honor and his own by agreeing to the zoom FGNW ambush. Path B is win-win-win.
//
https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/pfbid02XGsek9Muks2f2mEE3GqQwcALoNCZ4v24acmeLC5aWG93s6LGHoU1hTCwMGWZFWMbl?comment_id=848560780595282&reply_comment_id=506907838835799
x544 Maxwell C. Bridges : scared and don't even address the OCT at the WTC
2024-09-24
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, You are afraid. You already know that the cabal spinning OCT nonsense at the Pentagon is in error, yet you are afraid to evaluate the same cabal's shoddy WTC analysis which gave them street-cred on 9/11. Don't want to go there, because the void left in our understanding would be great.
"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon.
You are scared and don't even address the OCT at the WTC. If you did, you'd see where even NT -- the poster-child of limited-hang-outs -- comes up short.
This link is for the latter-day lurker readers. Reference note #5 is the most interesting.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
x546 Craig McKee : proven that a controlled demolition took place
2024-09-24
Craig McKee
Maxwell C. Bridges If you want to be disingenuous, by all means call me afraid. I've told you plenty of times over the years why I'm not interested in spending large chunks of time on what mechanism of demolition was used. I consider it proven that a controlled demolition took place. Your characterization of nanothermite being a cabal theory is false. It's almost as if you want me to be less effective in countering the cabal on the Pentagon...
x548 Maxwell C. Bridges : unobjective and closed-minded
2024-09-24
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, You are afraid. And you're unobjective and closed-minded.
Who's being disingenuous with your "large chunks of time" bullshit? How is 20 minutes to read my thesis a "large chunk of time"? I've even done the research that your so-called "journalism" skills couldn't muster, so you would already be a leg up. You've been given all my notes and several versions of my write-up.
I characterize the NT theory as limited hang-out, and everybody who is part of the cabal supports it. Ergo, I'm right; you're wrong.
Don't be twisting things. Because you are not an objective or open-minded 9/11 truther, you are already less effective in countering the cabal on the Pentagon. In fact, there is no way you can be effective if you let their shoddy WTC work pass without considering it. You let it all go, unquestioned and unchallenged... which is exactly complaint number 1 against Dr. Steven Jones, the initial perpetrator of the fraud known as NT, because he accepted "unquestioned and unchallenged" the stilted, shoddy, and hole-ridden agency work on the dust analysis and the tritium analysis, which prove both a fission process as well as a fusion process.
You're spinning your wheels at the Pentagon; you'll never get any traction. You are too willing to "appeal to the authority" of a PhD, and aren't very astute at doing your own research or even studying the research work of others for validity or holes. Guess you missed that course at the Uni when getting your journalism degree.
You want to be effective at the Pentagon? "In for a penny, in for a pound." If you take a step back from the Pentagon to view AE9/11Truth work at the WTC objectively and with an open-mind, you'll come to the conclusion that the cabal was scientifically deceitful at the WTC. You'll knock out from underneath them the one leg that was half-way stable and giving them gravitas at the Pentagon.
Nope, Mr. McKee. Your cross-border support of Trump (via attacks on Harris) combined with decades of stone-walling a legitimate journalistic effort into my theory... Man, you ain't who I thought you were. And then to team up with yes-man Mr. Ruff -- Mr. HR1's little buddy -- who repeatedly punked his own reputation?...
Nope, Mr. McKee.
You're afraid to host a legitimate FGNW discussion, even one where you could hand-pick a panel to ambush the FGNW hobby-horse. Why?
Because you aren't genuine.
Because you know that such revelations -- if vetted -- will have figurative nuclear fallout on past and present incarnations of AE9/11Truth, where you still have friends and potential contracting ($$) options that you don't want to piss on by imploding a potential cash-cow.
Because you don't want to follow the white rabbit of truth where ever it leads, but are satisfied with quick-ending gopher-holes that don't require thinking.
The difference between you and me is that I am open-minded enough to explore the theories and research that on the surface sound bat-shit-crazy, so that I can vet it (or not) for my own edification. Indeed, unlike you, I've explored fully the whole NPT@WTC thing and was even deep in the middle of it championing it, until my objectivity had me consider evidence and facts contrary to the theory. I've explored fully the rabbit-holes of deep-underground nukes and Woodsian-DEW and legitimately debunked them. YOU HAVE NOT.
You are not sincere, and with your Trump-trumpeting, aren't very genuine either.
//
x550 Craig McKee : We're done here
2024-09-24
Craig McKee
Maxwell C. Bridges We're done here
x552 Maxwell C. Bridges : not being genuine, not being sincere, being afraid to follow truth, being afraid to be an objective journalist, being close-minded
2024-09-24
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Not "we." Persistence was another of my super powers along with being naive and trusting. Although being this is your posting on your wall, you may possibly resort to censorship as in the past to make your point about "we're done here" while at the same validating all of the exposed character flaws that undermine your 9/11 Truther credentials.
If you would like an apology for all of my disingenuous digs at your genital area, here you now have it. I'm sorry. That was most inappropriate of me to speculate into your sexuality and personal body parts. On those, not my style, but reason wasn't working.
If you would like an apology for the negative implications into your character -- not being genuine, not being sincere, being afraid to follow truth, being afraid to be an objective journalist, being close-minded --, the legal point to remember is that the ultimate defense for an accused defamer for "alleged defamation" is "Truth." It isn't defamation if it's true.
Today, my negative character assessments of you are valid.
Tomorrow (future), when you finally get serious about 9/11 Truth and legitimately "zoom ambush the FGNW hobby-horse", I'll have to recant my words and offer you an apology before any arguments are presented, because the simple act of hosting a legitimate FGNW panel discussion will completely invalidate my accusations of you being closed-minded, not being an objective journalist, afraid to follow truth, etc. [Make me eat my words!]
Meanwhile, shame on you, Mr. McKee. You've been making your chops as a 9/11 journalist who gave a rational and straight story on why 9/11 narratives need to be challenged. Yet -- if validated -- the one theory that could figuratively "nuclear-energize" all other 9/11 activities -- from public enlightenment to debunking the cabal to taking cases to court --, you would rather give "the blackhole treatment."
Moreover, if the theory is invalidated, all acolades go to you for achieving this for the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world. And I'll apologize for having been wrong.
You complain about your time involvement to research. Yes, my research efforts don't absolve you, as a 9/11 Journalist, from your own research. But my research efforts for sure can seed your efforts, give you a direction to look, point out referenced-sources to read on your own. My FGNW hobby-horse has given a roadmap and a big, fat series of targets painted on its back that make the job of the zoom ambush panel easier: section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph.
Here's the ultimate insult, Mr. McKee. When you refuse to have me on your zoom show, you resemble Trump being scared of another debate. Everything ever said about Trump's motivation and performance gets projected onto you, Mr. McKee.
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin had correspondance over many years, two intelligent minds discussing the matters of the day, saved and re-purposed into published collections for later generations to read.
I view our exchanges as being on the level and importance of Jefferson + Franklin, not just to the 9/11 realm but to the world.
Take it seriously and objectively.
//
//
x554 Bob Byron : just a troll...nothing more
2024-09-24
Bob Byron
Craig McKee
He is just a troll...nothing more.
And his job is to distract away from the real 9-11 truth that was started as a group in 2005 after the government scientists authoring the official collapse stories, refuse to support everything they claim...
Then implementing the GAG ORDER that Bush provided that is preventing the 'liars' from being dragged into any situation where we might get answers.
Bob Byron
Maxwell C. Bridges "I have legacy, bitch. I've documented my evolution in thought."
That's great!
Mom is real proud of you.
...yet you show nothing to prove me wrong.
Show me your documentation as to how you evolved into the position of ONLY pushing the 'nuke'.
What instances per the event of 9-11 caused you to ignore the official collapse story, to 'nukes did it all'?
Seems you do not believe the official story....?why?
Did they threaten you?
Did they..'touch' you?
Did they SAY something that did not seem quite right?
Did they seem suspicious when you demanded they support what they 'hypothesize', and they refused to support their 'first-time-claims-of-science?
Funny how you DIRECTLY IGNORE that what would essentially assist you in your quest for 'de' nukes...
Funny how you refuse to incorporate ANY of the real facts about 9-11 truth to help convey your message of 'something else'.
Funny how you go out of your way NOT to mention those liars...whom are the very reason 9-11 TRUTH started as a group in 2005 after the Structural community was refuse the evidence from this public investigation of the 'first-time-physics' pushed by the government scientists that are given a GAG ORDER to hide behind as they lie.
Protecting them to this day, and beyond.
x556 Maxwell C. Bridges : followed the white rabbit of Truth
2024-09-24
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Bob Byron, You wrote the following crazy notion: "Show me your documentation as to how you evolved into the position of ONLY pushing the 'nuke'."
Sorry, your question does a "nuclear fizzle," because nowhere in my bitch-ass legacy does my evolution ever go and push "the 'nuke'". As in singular. Pretty stupid of you to advocate such nonsense given that the WTC had at least three destructive events.
You asked: "What instances per the event of 9-11 caused you to ignore the official collapse story, to 'nukes did it all'?"
I have never "ignored the official collapse story," this goes for both the government's "official collapse stories" (from pancakes to gravity-driven pile-drivers) and the 9/11 Truth Movement's (e.g., ae911truth) consensus "official collapse stories" (e.g., nanothermite, conventional chemical based explosives, DEW from a distance, deep-underground nukes). Exactly the opposite. I embraced those various "official collapse stories," compared to the many anomalies, and determined them to be woefully incomplete and wanting.
My 9/11 theory is exotic 4th gen nuclear devices. This is an important distinction, because bantering around the imprecise "nukes" or its variants allows for a whole world of mischaracterization and malframing into a half-century of media-hyped impressions of what all "nukes" supposedly are in terms of nuclear yield. (Large heat wave, large blast wave, fissile material spread wide, radioactivity, etc.)
You ask: "Seems you do not believe the official story....?why?"
Again, you aren't being clear about which "official story" that you are referring to. Is it the government's official story? Or is it the official consensus story of the infiltrated truth movement that the government blesses and allows to exist?
In both cases, I followed the white rabbit of Truth. I read their reports including the footnotes and even spelunked into the rabbit-holes of those footnotes' sources to see if it made sense, made the case, had no holes, convinced me, etc. Unlike you and most of the sheep in the Truth Movement, I wasn't satisfied with a third- and fourth-party review of some book or report; I went and validated (or not) the sources and reviews for myself.
And such efforts exposed deceit. Exposed manipulation. Exposed lies by omission
Worse than my disbelief of "the official story" was the collection of nuggets of truth from the depths of those rabbit-holes and refining them into the "9/11 theory of all 9/11 theories," the one that connects and explains them all and the massive efforts to continue the misdirection, misinformation, disinformation, holding the truther line at limited hang-out non-conclusive theories/lies.
Exotic 4th gen nuclear weapons is that theory.
Any whiff, no matter how "exotic", that the US/Israel zionists "nuked" the heart of US commerce, why the figurative nuclear fallout to institutions, agencies, corporate media, individuals... could still happen even at this late date.
Ergo, "the blackhole treatment" my 9/11 hobby-horse does get.
P.S. The rest of your message wasn't even worth reading, much less responding to.
//
Part 23: FGNW Discussions with Gene Laratonda, Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda, Mark Graham
x558 Maxwell C. Bridges : more important questions than "why was NT in dust?"
2024-09-25
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, more important questions than "why was NT in dust?" are:
- Why did two reports on the dust (USGS, Paul LIoy) list in their data tables Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities?
- Why did both of those dust reports put forth effort into giving lame-ass explanations for many of the elements reported in their tables, but nothing on why Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities would be present?
- Why did both of those dust reports ignore that Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities are fingerprints for a fission process?
- Why did the tritium report have such shoddy measurements, shoddy sampling, and only from the run-off to WTC-6 (not from the towers)? Why did the tritium report fraudulently re-define "trace" to be 55 times greater than it was previously? Instead of scope-limiting their report to "building content" and "potential health impacts", why didn't they consider other sources for tritium, like it being a building block of all 3rd/4th generation nuclear devices?
- Why were the dust samples of Dr. Steven Jones the only ones allegedly having these energetic flakes? Given that NT is an incendiary and Dr. Jones stated that in order to achieve the observed brissance/pulverization that something else like RDX needed to be added to it, why did Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth not explore his dust samples for that "something else?" When Dr. Jones used six (6) spikes in the off-gassing of the debris pile as alleged evidence of NT, he stated that "something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT", so why did Dr. Jones not explore his dust samples for that "something else?"
- The true NT argument was made from the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in EVERYONE's dust samples. They scope-limited themselves into only considering NT as the source, as if it is the only mechanism that can generate the excessive heat required to for that anomaly. They claimed they were the by-product of the NT reaction and calculate backwards to a massive amount. Why did they not use "scientific reasonableness" to consider the huge logistic hurdle this amounted to, and right under the nose of bomb-sniffing dogs?
- Why did the proponents for NT never provide details into installation and configuration that would result in anomalies such as "the spire", the dustification of concrete, the vaporization of metal pans and trusses, the disappearance of all office content and personnel? Specifically, if a destructive mechanism has as its goal the dustification of concrete, where and how was it applied? If you spray something up above ceiling tiles, you're spraying NT on metal pans and how would this affect the concrete on top of it? If you spray something on the concrete floors, you have to first move all office furnishings and lift up the carpeting, no?
- Given that the audio signature of the WTC towers' destruction did not sound like a machine gun with ~100 sequential explosions over ~10 seconds, and given that the first responders recalled it as "boom-boom-boom", or a cadence that could be counted like once every half second (or boom-every-fifth floor), (a) was every floor wired but detonated 5 floors at a time, or (b) was every 5th floor wired and the blast wave destroyed 5 floors at a time? With either (a) or (b), the audio signature would have been very loud and deafening, so how did NT accomplish the concrete dustification relatively quietly?
- Why did the proponents for NT never discuss how the damage to WTC-4 was created? (a) It doesn't have sufficient WTC-2 wall assemblies even falling from great heights to flatten 9 stories of WTC-4's main edifice, and (b) the longer videos of WTC-2 destruction all show a content-rich dust cloud energetically rising up from where WTC-4 was while the falling top-most WTC-2 wall assemblies were still seconds from street level. Did NT dustify WTC-4?
- Why did proponents of NT never discuss how the damage to WTC-6 was created? It has a an 8 story crater cut out of the middle of it with insufficient WTC-2 debris to account for this straight vertical cut. Why did WTC-4 and WTC-6 not resemble each other if the OCT (and NT) explanations for them were "falling tower wall assemblies"?
The above are glaring unanswered questions that the science-literate of AE9/11Truth didn't think were important when championing NT.
I could go on, but it would be a re-hash from this earlier version of my 9/11 theory of exotic 4th gen nuclear weapons.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
IMPORTANT CAROUSEL-SPIN AVOIDANCE!!!
Mr. Gene Laratonda, the above article is supposedly something you already read (maybe). At the least, you made a comment 2023-09-21 under that article. Owing to the character-count limitations of my blog, my reply to your comment had eight (8) parts, none of which you responded to.
I believe the questions above are new (to you) and deserve serious consideration. However, if you'd like to continue the exchange from before, remember to "advance the discussion" which means taking apart each of the eight part responses to discuss "the good, the bad, and the ugly."
P.S. I had (past-tense) lots of respect for Mr. Craig McKee, but only because my super-powers of being naive and trusting blinded me. Mr. McKee aspires to be "9/11 super-journalist," claims to be open-minded and objective. Alas, after over a decade of participation and exchanges in his forums, he refuses to seriously consider my hobby-horse legitimately -- not to read to identify typos, not as a blog/substack article as a theme to be discussed, not even for a "zoom FGNW ambush panel" that he and Mr. Ruff would control and could stack.
Something to consider. None of the 9/11 nukers (e.g., deep underground nukes) have publicly come over to my FGNW premise despite it being next-level nuke. None of the Woodsian-DEWers have publicly come over to my FGNW premise despite it being in the category of DEW, being able to have excess amounts of energy (the evidence does show being exhibited). Neither of the two could legitimately and rationally discuss the merits and demerits of the other, nor could they hook-up with one another for the devil's offspring FGNW. Team "Norman" (9/11 Revisionist) won't debate me, blocks me on social media. Because I debunk Woodsian-DEW legitimately; I debunk most nuke premises legitimately. McKee's Pentagon cabal (e.g., David Chandler, Wayne Coste) also don't want to discuss.
Whereas me being a lone-nut on my FGNW premise might raise a red flag -- from nukes to Woodsian-DEW nutters to NTers to AE9/11Truth to McKee to ... -- nobody wants to legitimately discuss (a) weaknesses to their hobby-horse premise (e.g., NT, Woodsian-DEW, deep-underground nukes) or (b) merits and demerits of the FGNW theory.
Here's an analogy. If my 9/11 theory was something wild-ass bat-shit crazy like "gummibears destroyed the WTC complex", there would be many influential people in the 9/11 truth movement who would step forward, take it seriously, and legitimately debunk the wild-ass bat-shit crazy theory. "Gummibears aren't explosive; gummibears don't burn for months; gummibears weren't found in the dust; gummibears would trigger bomb-sniffing dogs."
But given the depth of evidence supporting my 9/11 theory, the number of influential people in the 9/11 truth movement who take steps backwards, don't take it seriously, and make no attempt for a legitimate debunking, that right there is "blackhole treatment."
I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm not asking you believe it.
Just the opposite: don't trust me; don't believe it just because I say.
Instead, objectively and legitimately consider it. Legitimately vet FGNW or not; legitimately vet NT or not (particularly in light of the mortal wounding sustained above).
That's the ask.
//
x560 Gene Laratonda : I lose all respect when you shit on nanothermite
2024-09-25
Gene Laratonda
Mr. Bridges, I don't mind when you propose your theory but I lose all respect when you try and shit on nanothermite.
x562 Maxwell C. Bridges : defend NT against my "shit."
2024-09-25
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Laratonda, Don't be shitting on the messenger. If NT is so wonderful, defend it against my "shit." Answer the questions posed. Be a good, objective, and open-minded seeker of truth.
Until then, your lashing out at me is just your "cognitive dissonance" causing you pain, because NT does not go the distance where it could be considered the primary mechanisms of destruction.
As mentioned, I'm just a messenger for Truth. But if you want to have respect for you imploded, don't defend NT against the legitimate complaints about it (and its champions) that I have presented.
//
x564 Gene Laratonda : not playing your games
2024-09-25
Gene Laratonda
I'm not playing your games
x566 Maxwell C. Bridges : can't even handle legitimate criticism of your NT premise
2024-09-25
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Laratonda, correct; you're playing your own games whereby you can't even handle legitimate criticism of your NT premise.
I am rational and reasoned. I ain't no "Norman/911Revisionist".
If NT is your educated belief, defend it. Answer the questions.
If you objectively and legitimately defend NT, great. But so far you seem to be (a) ignoring the challenge and (b) shitting on the challenger. Those are not game-winning strategies.
//
x568 Maxwell C. Bridges : the energy sink was met with nuclear sources
2024-09-22
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Ms. Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda, If Newtonian physics is a stretch such that the huge energy sink of pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration does not raise questions in the public, then clearly the notion that the energy sink was met with nuclear sources of energy ["the WTC was nuked!"] would be a bridge too far for narrowing down the suspected devices to USA origin.
Yes, science and math are the guiding light for sincere seekers of Truth at the WTC, because basic high school math and chemistry not only debunks the OCT "gravity driven pile-driver" but also the nanothermite premise.
Whether or not we validate the energetic particles in Dr. Steven Jones dust samples as being present every where in the dust (not just his), Dr. Jones stated that something was added to NT (an incendiary) to give it the observed brissance of dustification, something like RDX. But then he preceded to NOT look for that "something else" in his dust samples.
Similarly when considering the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, Dr. Jones crack team could only (barely) attribute 6 spikes in the debris piling off-gassing to their NT, and flat-out stated (on 9/11 blogger before they pulled its plug) that "something maintained the hot-spots, not just NT." And then preceded to NOT look for that "something else" in his dust samples.
The NT argument ignores that two different reports on the dust have data tables (a) listing Uraniums and its decay elements, and both reports (b) give plain text explanations for why various elements would be present, but both reports (c) omitted any plain text explanation for why Uranium and its decay elements would be present. Finger prints of a fissile process. The NT argument also ignores the tritium report, whereby tritium is evidence of a fusion process and the fact that all 3rd and 4th gen devices are hybrid fission/fusion.
The NT argument uses the measurements of significant percentages of tiny iron spheres (which requires an extremely hot heat source to create) in the dust to say they came about as a by-product of the NT reaction with steel (in the towers) and calculated backwards to some massive tonnage required for the towers destruction, which they didn't question from a logistics perspective or a bomb-sniffing-dog holiday schedule as being reasonable.
Where high school math and chemistry really blows away the NT argument is that hot-spots burned for many weeks. Sure, NT's reaction doesn't need oxygen, but the calculations for the amounts needed to maintain one hot-spot for just 4 weeks isn't just obscenely massive overkill, this is NT that was allegedly unspent from its pulverizing purposes and is over-and-above the massive amount already calculated backwards from the tiny-iron spheres.
That NT dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
Seed planting: fizzled nukes from some of the many exotic 4th gen devices used in WTC-1, 2, 4, 6, and 6 were the cause of the duration of the hot-spots.
P.S. The "squib" shown in the picture above was the ignition of the FGNW on that side of the outside wall of the inner-core (1 device on all four sides) of that detonation level. 80% if the nuclear yield was highly energetic neutrons aimed upwards. Its conic output went through the floors and grazed wall assemblies 20 some floors above the detonation level, as shown in picture.
Here is an earlier version of the 9/11 exotic 4th gen nuclear premise, and it contains sections that slaughter the NT sacred cow.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
+++++
x570 Maxwell C. Bridges : infiltrators to 9/11 truth
2024-09-25
Dear Ms. Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda, It saddens me that you got duped into a relationship with one of those infiltrators to 9/11 truth, moved across the globe, and now are trapped in his intolerant, close-minded house.
The qualities that you'd expect in a truther -- objectivity, open-mindedness, passion for Truth -- aren't exhibited by Gene on the 9/11 front, so...
How so? He's incapable of defending NT against any of its weaknesses. He'd rather FB censor, FB block, filter into email trash, and pre-boot me from his Sunday panel than objectively consider the criticism and the NT narrative that he has been duped by.
And this is before I lay out how the evidence stacks more favorable to my 9/11 theory.
Speaking of which, here is an earlier version of my theory where I felt it incumbent to address why various leading 9/11 theories (e.g., nanothermite) are wrong.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
But here is something that is interesting. Although newer versions existed at the time, Gene did go to this version of my thesis (2023-09) and even left a comment.
But in a case of Gene exhibiting his character flaws back then, he didn't address anything from the article; his comments even reflected that he didn't read the article, because his concerns from his comment had be already addressed (2016-03) in the article.
But his comment was a hit-and-run. He ignored my point-by-point response divided over 8 parts; because it is conceivable he missed my blog response, I emailed him with that same response, which he also ignored.
And just today, some posting from Gene about nanothermite entered into my FB feed, so I addressed its issues. Don't know if that comment or posting remain, because I can't get to them.
Gene hated my comment so much when also given to him as an email, Gene wrote: "I'm done with you. All future mail goes to garbage. I won't even see it. You come in the 9/11 WarRoom and you'll be booted immediately."
I'm assuming Gene is wearing your panties, but below is what got them into a wad.
//
++++ DEFEND NT LEGITIMATELY
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, more important questions than "why was NT in dust?" are:
- Why did two reports on the dust (USGS, Paul LIoy) list in their data tables Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities?
- Why did both of those dust reports put forth effort into giving lame-ass explanations for many of the elements reported in their tables, but nothing on why Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities would be present?
- Why did both of those dust reports ignore that Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities are fingerprints for a fission process?
- Why did the tritium report have such shoddy measurements, shoddy sampling, and only from the run-off to WTC-6 (not from the towers)? Why did the tritium report fraudulently re-define "trace" to be 55 times greater than it was previously? Instead of scope-limiting their report to "building content" and "potential health impacts", why didn't they consider other sources for tritium, like it being a building block of all 3rd/4th generation nuclear devices?
- Why were the dust samples of Dr. Steven Jones the only ones allegedly having these energetic flakes? Given that NT is an incendiary and Dr. Jones stated that in order to achieve the observed brissance/pulverization that something else like RDX needed to be added to it, why did Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth not explore his dust samples for that "something else?" When Dr. Jones used six (6) spikes in the off-gassing of the debris pile as alleged evidence of NT, he stated that "something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT", so why did Dr. Jones not explore his dust samples for that "something else?"
- The true NT argument was made from the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in EVERYONE's dust samples. They scope-limited themselves into only considering NT as the source, as if it is the only mechanism that can generate the excessive heat required to for that anomaly. They claimed they were the by-product of the NT reaction and calculate backwards to a massive amount. Why did they not use "scientific reasonableness" to consider the huge logistic hurdle this amounted to, and right under the nose of bomb-sniffing dogs?
- Why did the proponents for NT never provide details into installation and configuration that would result in anomalies such as "the spire", the dustification of concrete, the vaporization of metal pans and trusses, the disappearance of all office content and personnel? Specifically, if a destructive mechanism has as its goal the dustification of concrete, where and how was it applied? If you spray something up above ceiling tiles, you're spraying NT on metal pans and how would this affect the concrete on top of it? If you spray something on the concrete floors, you have to first move all office furnishings and lift up the carpeting, no?
- Given that the audio signature of the WTC towers' destruction did not sound like a machine gun with ~100 sequential explosions over ~10 seconds, and given that the first responders recalled it as "boom-boom-boom", or a cadence that could be counted like once every half second (or boom-every-fifth floor), (a) was every floor wired but detonated 5 floors at a time, or (b) was every 5th floor wired and the blast wave destroyed 5 floors at a time? With either (a) or (b), the audio signature would have been very loud and deafening, so how did NT accomplish the concrete dustification relatively quietly?
- Why did the proponents for NT never discuss how the damage to WTC-4 was created? (a) It doesn't have sufficient WTC-2 wall assemblies even falling from great heights to flatten 9 stories of WTC-4's main edifice, and (b) the longer videos of WTC-2 destruction all show a content-rich dust cloud energetically rising up from where WTC-4 was while the falling top-most WTC-2 wall assemblies were still seconds from street level. Did NT dustify WTC-4?
- Why did proponents of NT never discuss how the damage to WTC-6 was created? It has a an 8 story crater cut out of the middle of it with insufficient WTC-2 debris to account for this straight vertical cut. Why did WTC-4 and WTC-6 not resemble each other if the OCT (and NT) explanations for them were "falling tower wall assemblies"?
The above are glaring unanswered questions that the science-literate of AE9/11Truth didn't think were important when championing NT.
I could go on, but it would be a re-hash from this earlier version of my 9/11 theory of exotic 4th gen nuclear weapons.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
IMPORTANT CAROUSEL-SPIN AVOIDANCE!!!
Mr. Gene Laratonda, the above article is supposedly something you already read (maybe). At the least, you made a comment 2023-09-21 under that article. Owing to the character-count limitations of my blog, my reply to your comment had eight (8) parts, none of which you responded to.
I believe the questions above are new (to you) and deserve serious consideration. However, if you'd like to continue the exchange from before, remember to "advance the discussion" which means taking apart each of the eight part responses to discuss "the good, the bad, and the ugly."
P.S. I had (past-tense) lots of respect for Mr. Craig McKee, but only because my super-powers of being naive and trusting blinded me. Mr. McKee aspires to be "9/11 super-journalist," claims to be open-minded and objective. Alas, after over a decade of participation and exchanges in his forums, he refuses to seriously consider my hobby-horse legitimately -- not to read to identify typos, not as a blog/substack article as a theme to be discussed, not even for a "zoom FGNW ambush panel" that he and Mr. Ruff would control and could stack.
Something to consider. None of the 9/11 nukers (e.g., deep underground nukes) have publicly come over to my FGNW premise despite it being next-level nuke. None of the Woodsian-DEWers have publicly come over to my FGNW premise despite it being in the category of DEW, being able to have excess amounts of energy (the evidence does show being exhibited). Neither of the two could legitimately and rationally discuss the merits and demerits of the other, nor could they hook-up with one another for the devil's offspring FGNW. Team "Norman" (9/11 Revisionist) won't debate me, blocks me on social media. Because I debunk Woodsian-DEW legitimately; I debunk most nuke premises legitimately. McKee's Pentagon cabal (e.g., David Chandler, Wayne Coste) also don't want to discuss.
Whereas me being a lone-nut on my FGNW premise might raise a red flag -- from nukes to Woodsian-DEW nutters to NTers to AE9/11Truth to McKee to ... -- nobody wants to legitimately discuss (a) weaknesses to their hobby-horse premise (e.g., NT, Woodsian-DEW, deep-underground nukes) or (b) merits and demerits of the FGNW theory.
Here's an analogy. If my 9/11 theory was something wild-ass bat-shit crazy like "gummibears destroyed the WTC complex", there would be many influential people in the 9/11 truth movement who would step forward, take it seriously, and legitimately debunk the wild-ass bat-shit crazy theory. "Gummibears aren't explosive; gummibears don't burn for months; gummibears weren't found in the dust; gummibears would trigger bomb-sniffing dogs."
But given the depth of evidence supporting my 9/11 theory, the number of influential people in the 9/11 truth movement who take steps backwards, don't take it seriously, and make no attempt for a legitimate debunking, that right there is "blackhole treatment."
I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm not asking you believe it.
Just the opposite: don't trust me; don't believe it just because I say.
Instead, objectively and legitimately consider it. Legitimately vet FGNW or not; legitimately vet NT or not (particularly in light of the mortal wounding sustained above).
That's the ask.
//
x572 Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda : Argue well.
2024-09-27
Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda
"Argue well. It is very important to remember that, in an argument, it's not you against the other person. Rather, it's you and the other person against the issue. Separate the human from the problem."~Dr. Caroline Leaf
x574 Maxwell C. Bridges : my theory is the 9/11 holy grail for nukers and DEWers
2024-09-27
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Ms. Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda, I'm so glad that you put this on your wall for members of the 9/11 Truth Movement (and your household) to see.
The two issues in motion are (1) the Nanothermite narrative has many holes, does not "go the distance" in explaining the anomalies of 9/11, and rational study of NT vs. evidence exposes deceit; (2) "Something else" was the primary means of WTC destruction, but nobody wants to give rational consideration and discussion to this truth.
I am astounded at the wall of proud un-objectivity from people who claim to be "Truthers." I am not bat-shit crazy, [but I will readily embrace such so I have an electron trail to substantiate "innocent by reason of insanity" to present at my trial in the dystopian future for being a "deviant but rational thinker." Not so crazy, eh?] I'll spare you me bragging about myself and CV because this is at the beginning of my "9/11 Easter Egg" zoom presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth (2024-03-21).
Further, I'm presently not associated with or teamed up with any nukers or Woodsian-DEWers, or anybody. A real lone nut. Which is surprising, and another Matrix glitch. Their supposed open-minded champions can't seem to objectively consider:
(a) The deficiencies in explanations for their nuke or DEW (or nanothermite) premises; and
(b) The ability for exotic 4th gen nukes to address all of the evidence while taking nuclear-DEW premise to the next logical level.
What confuses me, is that my theory is the 9/11 holy grail for nukers and DEWers; they should have been converts to my theory and spread it virally through the 9/11 truth community and then the world.
But, NOOOOOoooooouuuuu!!!
There aren't many nukers left (except Mr. Heinz Pommer and Dr. James Fetzer); there are lots of DEWers thanks to Dr. Wood's book, which actually did a shitty job of researching both nuclear and DEW. (Why? Part of her "assassination-prevention" program along with embracing some bat-shit crazy Hutchison. Her true achievement to the 9/11 Truth Movement is the collection of evidence and asking questions.)
The active Woodsian-DEWers blow a gasket when you point out that Dr. Wood connected no dots and drew no conclusions, so they should be on the look-out for what does connect dots and take DEW to the next level. 911Revisionist/Norman Swanepoel is no exception, and deleted my comments to his substack posting, blocks me there and FB, and defended Woodsian-DEW exceptionally poorly via email [to be re-published to my blog much much later when I get around to it.]
I relate this story to illustrate that I am in a different class of truther, with persistence and sincerity super-powers.
Also, to disassociate myself from the antics of Woodsian-DEWers who may have been vexing various 9/11 forums and zoom gatherings. Not me; not my tactics.
Between Gene Laratonda's 9/11 War Room, Boston 9/11 Truth, and a Craig McKee teleconference panel, I would be surprised if log records for all zoom meetings combined show me attending more than a dozen (to-date this year and ever); certainly since after my first engagements, my behavior and contributions to the discussion have been proper and good.
COINCIDENCE
Just this week when asked when I could present my 9/11 thesis to the zoom meeting that Mr. Craig McKee co-hosts with Mr. Adam Ruff, he tells me I will never be invited onto his show. [My blog 2015-04 documents Mr. Ruff PWNing himself, so he's not a fan of me or my hobby-horse.] I even offered Mr. McKee that he could stack a whole zoom FGNW ambush panel, and he could pop my "on-camera" cherry.
Ironic, that Mr. McKee makes a big deal out of his "Pentagon cabal" misleading the public on that front, yet doesn't care that my hobby-horse is the cabal's Achille's heel. Meaning, their WTC analysis is what gave them 9/11 truther-credentials and gravitas to mislead 9/11 Truth at the Pentagon. When the flaws in the WTC analysis -- and nanothermite -- are exposed, "in-for-a-penny in-for-a-pound" and "guilt-by-association" their Pentagon analysis implodes.
[Parts of the cabal: Mr. Wayne Coste, Mr. David Chandler,... they run away from rational discussions with me. Haven't got any feedback on the third version of my theory submitted to IC9/11.]
But also this week, Mr. Gene Laratonda wrote: "I'm done with you. All future mail goes to garbage. I won't even see it. You come in the 9/11 WarRoom and you'll be booted immediately."
Why? He wrote: "Mr. Bridges, I don't mind when you propose your theory but I lose all respect when you try and shit on nanothermite."
That is some mighty fine "9/11 dogma" right there, really pegs the meter for "unobjectivity" and "closed-minded", and must induce some painful headaches from the cognitive dissonance that NT could have fatal weaknesses as being considered the primary cause of WTC destruction.
Let's now all go back up to the top and re-read Ms. Sandra's meme from Dr. Caroline Leaf.
//
x576 Maxwell C. Bridges : worst-case, upper-limit to the energy speculation
2024-11-01
Dear Ms. Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda, Here's another basic physics thought-experiment about 9/11 that is very similar to this one, but might provide more insight.
According to the OCT, many floors of wall assemblies from WTC-2 fell over and pancake flattened all 9 stories of the main edifice of WTC-4. Let's use Newtonian physics on the falling wall assemblies.
Here's one simplification we can make out of the gate. Many videos show the wall assemblies on their inside faces had no attachments; no trusses that supported the metal pans that held the concrete floor; no metal pans; no concrete floor. Hell, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that drywall and paint also weren't present and were seen "steaming" off of the wall assemblies from their earliest moments of separation from the rest of the towers.
Therefore, the first simplification is that we can use the lightest of the known weights for the individual wall assemblies, because the ones higher up in the structure had thinner hollow box columns and were lighter.
When we observe the wall assemblies resting on WTC-4 after 9/11, we can count how many wall assemblies horizontally and vertically still had attachment to one another. For this example, count only those assemblies that covered the roof's surface area of WTC-4's main edifice. Add those up and multiple by the weight of a single wall assembly. Call this mass total, M.
Technically, the wall assemblies that were attached to one another fell over, much like an extension ladder used to get on a house's roof simply falling over. Owing to the complexity of the angular momentum (which ultimately reduces the inflicted energy), let us simplify this physics problem to be similar that of the WTC-2 pile-driving block.
Let's assume the wall assemblies in question were already horizontal (flat, outside face pointing down) and situated vertically above the WTC-4 main edifice by some great height "h". The NIST reports stated the towers' destruction time was around 10 seconds. Therefore, assume these already horizontal wall assemblies fell for 10 seconds onto WTC-4. According to Newton's laws:
Velocity at a point in time;
v(t) = (a0)(t) + v0; where v is velocity, t is time, a0 is initial acceleration which is in this case gravitational acceleration 32 [ft/(sec^2)]; and initial velocity v0 = 0.
Velocity of these horizational wall assemblies falling for 10 seconds (negating wind resistance) is:
v(10) = (32)(10) ft/sec = 320 ft/sec
The kinetic energy on impact is:
K.E. = (1/2) (M) (v^2), where M is the mass of the wall assemblies and v is velocity at impact.
K.E. = (1/2) (M) (320)^2 [J] = 51,200 * M [J]
Important: The wall assemblies were not "speared" into the WTC-4 where that "51,200*M" is all inflicted at their bottom, a small surface area. Nor are the wall assemblies "knife-bladed" into the WTC-4, which is a narrow but long surface area.
That "51,200*M" energy is distributed over outside faces of the counted wall assemblies, whose surface area is calculable from known dimensions. Energy distribution of a belly-flop. The rhetorical questions become:
- Was the distributed "51,200*M" energy sufficient to crush the 9th floor down to the 8th floor?
- How much resistance to the "51,200*M" energy would each successive nth floor provide to stop or slow down the cohesive wall assemblies belly flopping through them?
- Is the distributed "51,200*M" sufficient to dustify the content of 9 stories down to street level, which the aftermath pictures show?
- The WTC-4 roof was wider than the respective wall assemblies found on remains, so why didn't a roof line and several stories persist after being "cut" by the falling wall assemblies?
The above is hypothesis based on assumptions that do not apply, but it was a worst-case, upper-limit to the energy speculation. The non-rhetorical answers to the questions show that unrealistic vertical-dropping of the already-horizontal wall assemblies onto WTC-4 would prove incapable of dustifying the 9 stories of WTC-4.
Therefore, the more complex realistic cases physic cases where you tweak the angular momentum and fall time -- that reduce the kinetic energy -- also isn't the answer to WTC-4.
The answer to the above is not some gummiworm trojan hobby-horse.
//
x578 Mark Graham : never heard of WTC 4
2024-11-01
Mark Graham
Maxwell C. Bridges Several things.
NIST admitted there was no "pancake" effect. They did not claim a pancake effect.
"That "51,200*M" energy is distributed over outside faces of the counted wall assemblies, whose surface area is calculable from known dimensions." The vector of debris falling from Tower 2 was somewhat horizontal, somewhat vertical (more so than horizontal) and somewhat in between. Debris was blasted out horizontally as videos show.
I was active in the 9/11 Truth movement for years and never heard of WTC 4. It is rarely discussed in the movement as far as I know. What was it?
Your kinetic energy formulas treat the "impact" as a single, discrete event, but it was not.
"Is the distributed "51,200*M" sufficient to dustify the content of 9 stories down to street level, which the aftermath pictures show?"
There are at least 2 questions in here. Was the energy from falling debris sufficient to cause the 9th floor (to pick one) to fail?
and
What caused anything in the WTC 4 or, for that matter, the WTC 1 and 2, to turn into dust. Fire of concrete and stell and office furnishings does not create (much) dust, but demolition of a huge concrete skyscraper would and does.
I think this whole thing is complex and more confusing and less revealing than the OP including the picture
x580 Maxwell C. Bridges : It just so happens that I have researched this
2024-11-01
Dear Mr. Mark Graham, I suspect that you are confusing things when you mention NIST and the pancake effect, because they were referring to the twin towers. I do not recall them ever mentioning WTC-4, which is what I am referring to.
You mentioned that you never heard of WTC-4. It had gold vaults in its basements that were in the process of being looted; a semi trailer loaded with gold was abandoned in the underground service entrances (old subway tunnels). They don't mention how much gold was originally in the vaults, how much they recovered from the vaults, or how much they recovered from the truck. Consider this exhibit A about the financial motivations for 9/11.
Exhibit B is that WTC-6, the customs house, also has vaults in its basements that FEMA reports were emptied before its crater was created. Exhibit C is that President George H.W. Bush (in the early 1990's) borrowed against the confiscated Black Eagle and Phillipine gold (from WWII and should have been repatriated by the US to rightful owners, but instead was used to fund black ops). The borrowing against this gold was used to destabilize the Russian oil/energy markets in the early 1990's; it came due on 2001-09-11 but was forgotten with the destruction of WTC-7. Further, Exhibit D the SEC had many court cases against, say, may donors to President George W. Bush; their records were destroyed, thereby getting those cases dismissed. Exhibit E is the precision Pentagon strike that wiped out the Office of Naval Intelligence, its agents, and records relating to the unaccounted for $2.3 trillion is defense spending. Exhibit F is the division of Iraqi oil fields, Afghani natural gas & heroin, and the war profiteering that resulted.
You are correct that I mischaracterized the destruction of WTC-4 from falling wall assemblies, on purpose. I purposely took a worst-case approach: dropping already horizontal wall assemblies onto WTC-4 from a height equivalent to the towers. The premise was that if this worst case of belly-flopping wall assemblies could not crush down and pulverize the WTC-4 leaving hardly anything of its main edifice, THEN the more accurate leaning, angular momentum, and not discrete events (as you point out) also could not have achieve the observed evidence, because more accurate modeling would serve to reduce the energy involved.
To your questions, we could argue maybe that a belly-flopping network of several cohesive wall assemblies could smash down several floors of WTC-4. But not all floors, and not leaving sufficient debris (like the whole north roof line and North face that were not hit by the belly-flopping wall assemblies). The analogy is Hollywood stunt work where a person falls off of, say, a building but "back-flops" into an organized stack of assembled but empty cardboard boxes. The top one or two layers of boxes get deformed and slightly smashed from the impact, but not the neighboring boxes or those boxes at lower layers. (Further, even the smashed boxes are recognizable as boxes.) The lattice steel structure of WTC-4 made it similar to the organized stack of empty cardboard boxes that a wall assembly "back-flopped" onto. Sure, we expect deformation of, say, three to five floors, but we even in this deformation, we ought to have been able to recognize "the boxes" or the lower floors.
The real point is that this basic physics analysis on WTC-4 would have exposed a huge anomaly and unaccounted for energy sink.
In fact, when studying WTC-4, we naturally turn to the videos of WTC-2 destruction whose wall assemblies allegedly destroyed WTC-4. The issue with those videos is that they show a cloud of content-rich dust rising up from about street level (where WTC-4) WHILE the top-most wall assemblies were still in the air and still moments from hitting lower buildings and the street.
[A similar anomaly is observed with WTC-1 with respect to clouds of content-rich dust rising up from WTC-6 and WTC-5.]
You wrote: "What caused anything in the WTC 4 or, for that matter, the WTC 1 and 2, to turn into dust. Fire of concrete and stell and office furnishings does not create (much) dust, but demolition of a huge concrete skyscraper would and does."
It just so happens that I have researched this, discovered the easter eggs, rescued the nuggets of truth, and put together my findings. In a nutshell, exotic 4th gen nukes (FGNW) who released 80% of their nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons emitted in a targeted fashion, cone-shape pointed upwards. Four such FGNW per detonation level in the towers, mounted on the outside faces of the inner core (which gives rise to the anomaly known as "the spire" in both demolitions). Ten or more detonation levels in the towers.
I didn't mention that in my original comment, because it tends to get poor reactions by those mired in NT or DEW dogma, and more often than not it gets "the blackhole treatment." I wrote a parody about it, Gummiworms of 9/11 destroyed the WTC.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/10/gummiworms-of-911.html
Here is my researched article. I submitted it, and then two scaled down versions to the International Center for 9/11 Justice, yet I don't have any hopes that they'll publish it. Why? Figuratively, it nukes a hole into their objectivity and integrity, and exposes them for promoted inconclusive limited-hang-out theories (e.g., nanothermite) that really wasn't found in the dust everywhere and really doesn't address accurately even a fraction of the evidence.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
Part 24: FGNW Discussions with Susan Serpa
x582 Maxwell C. Bridges : Boston 9/11 Truth and the Gummiworm trojan hobby-horse
2024-10-17
to: Susan Serpa,
Alfred Magaletta
date: Oct 17, 2024, 12:43 PM
subject: Boston 9/11 Truth and the Gummiworm trojan hobby-horse
Dear Ms. Susan Serpa,
My regrets for not being able to make your meeting today. I have a conflicting Masonic Lodge meeting in Denver.
I missed being in person at other recent zoom conferences due to various commitments, but either saw the recordings afterwards or have on my to-do list to watch them.
At any rate, I wanted to thank you for being a good sport about being a protagonist in my parody. You know what they say about the best humor? It is founded in truth. So many parallels that my gummiworm trojan hobby-horse makes fun of.
I'm pitching to Boston 9/11 Truth that I be allowed to present to your group again. Maybe even a debate between FGNW and the Woodsian-DEWers and the NTers. The only catch is. Their premises and my premise are documented. My premise, however, addressed their premises and moved the conversation forward. I gave them critique. The state of the conversation in your forum will be for them to defend their premises against the criticism and to identify flaws in my premise. In other words, the conversation will be prevented from the actions of, say, Norman and Chris from doing what I mocked, namely by always trying to circle (what should be) an advancing discussion backwards to Dr. Wood's book that doesn't connect dots or draw conclusions, a criticism they won't acknowledge. [NT discussions have similar issues.]
Openly stated. Norman didn't fair well in (written) discussions with me; he cut and run (as mocked.) I don't he'll show up, and if he does, he'll be all bad behavior.
Chris, on the other hand, "is building two houses" so only has time for hit-and-run and keeps weaseling out of reading my premise let alone discussing it, maybe because it ought to turn him into a FGNW disciple. He (and Norman), like so many Woodsian DEWers I've run across, have a script and talking points. Chris does have a good share of the valid NT debunking that he has presented already that can be re-used against the participant who defends NT, in addition to my debunking points. This is published and available, for no excuse for the NT defenders "getting blindsided."
Who should defend NT? Richard Gage attends, but I doubt he'll participate. I mean, before my premise knocks out Woodsian DEW, the two us will tag team to destroy NT, and it could be very embarrassing for Richard to have his life's work from the last decade or so shredded. If he's not smart enough to avoid the discussion, maybe he'll be smart enough to say "those are data points that I had not seen before or connected together in that manner, and they cast sufficient doubt over my NT premise to have me waffle, recant, apologize, and want to rectify the misleading that happened to the public."
To sweeten the pot, I'll make you an offer made to Craig McKee: my mug on camera.
Obviously I'm biased, but I believe this little issue of a nuclear 9/11 is what is going to nuclear-energize all avenues of 9/11 research and activism to make 9/11 relevant to today.
All the best,
// mcb
x584 Susan Serpa : all speakers need to be approve by our 9-member speaker committee
2024-10-18
Susan Serpa
Fri, Oct 18, 6:09 AM
to me, Alfred
Sure! But all speakers now need to be approve by our 9-member speaker committee. I’ll put it up for a vote and let you know.
But we are booked through mid-December. So far, the speaker slots open are:
12/26
1/7
1/16
1/30
x586 Maxwell C. Bridges : narrowing my focus to WTC-4
2024-10-18
to Susan, Alfred
Dear Ms. Serpa,
Approval by a 9-member speaker committee?
[Joke] If you tell me who they are, I'll write chapter 2 in the gummiworm trojan hobby-horse saga with them as characters, being sure to keep you, Ms. Serpa, and batman's butler Alfred as the protagonists.
I'm feeling kind of like Moses here. When God was talking to him telling him what to do ("free the slaves from pharaoh"), Moses was whining, "Hey, God, I'm just a sheep-herder and slow to speak, don't have good words, get all nervous in front of crowds and people of power. I won't know what to say. I can't be the spokesperson." And God was assuring him that when the time comes, "you will know what to say with force and elegance, because I'll be with you. Plus I've got the parlor tricks of converting a staff to a snake, and giving you hand leprosy and curing your hand from the same when you stick your hand inside your cloak. No prob, Moses."
I don't have a presentation yet. Don't know what to say. (But will.)
I do think a legitimate 3-way debate between exotic nukes, NT, and DEW would be kind of cool. Might be difficult, however, to find people to do the legwork to champion effectively either NT or DEW, particularly when their research / discovery will identify the many ways they both have already been publicly criticized, and the difficulty of defending those flaws. If the would-be champion has ever run across me (or does some research on my blog about me), they'll decline ...
One of the running jokes in my parody is how many people don't want to engage me and are proud of it. When I gave Craig McKee the line (paraphrased) "I'll never have Maxwell present his theory on my platforms" and Gene Laratonda the line "I am pre-banning you from the 9/11 War Room", I wasn't making it up. Happened in the same week, in fact.
Same for Norman's disdain for me and avoiding discussions now. I haven't re-purposed yet the exchanges that he and I had last year. There is a definite difference between the prolific writing of his blog and the weak emails he sent in defense of his work. Screams "team" 9/11 Revisionist, with one of the teammates being ChatGPT (for the blog).
Hate to say it, even Chris Bergier has been quite the weasel. Despite being in the middle of building two houses, he has time to take pot-shot comments supporting Dr. Wood but doesn't have the time (10 minutes) to read my premise?
Of course, they'd like to make it personal, as if I were a mental patient. But I don't exhibit those behaviors. In fact, because I used the strategy of being formal, rational, articulate,... they don't have a lot of bad behavior to point to where I was out of line, or voiced crazy. Of course, I have labeled many times passages of my work as being "bat-shit crazy speculation" in order to pre-emptively embrace the slur to render it powerless (except at any future trials when I'll point to those Easter Eggs as "innocent by reason of insanity.")
A debate against NT champions Richard Gage or David Chandler would be most interesting, but they'll make every excuse in the book from "lowering themselves to my bat-shit crazy level of pigs in the mud". They don't have much to gain (except the truth) from engaging me and could put their reputations and work into jeopardy. The best they could do: after acknowledging the flaws in their NT premise and the strengths in the exotic nuke premise, they could apologize and promise to atone for their decades long misinformation by now championing exotic nukes, thereby nuclear energizing the 9/11 Truth Movement. But they're not going to take the risk.
This is where me being Moses comes into play. God is telling me I won't have to worry about what I say in debate, because the intelligent would-be debaters aren't going to participate. I'll be doing a monologue. ... Except for the bad actors, mostly Woodsian-DEWers, who themselves might be "fake" and "astroturf" and not sincere in their arguments but can disrupt; and their actions will discredit themselves.
So, I'm looking for another angle to my presentation.
What I'm thinking is narrowing my focus to WTC-4 and WTC-6. Proving through recorded evidence and physics that their dustified destruction through 9 stories could not be achieved (a) by falling wall assemblies, (b) chemical-based explosives including NT, or (c) DEW from afar. Nuclear DEW from within, however, yes. And once this case for FGNW on WTC-4 is made, it easily extrapolates backwards "in for a penny, in for a pound" to being the devices used on the other buildings in the complex, because 9/11 was a real showcase nuclear event where they wanted to highlight what different configurations of the same device can achieve.
First slot in the new year 2025 sounds like a good choice. Start the year off with a nuclear bang.
So when you present my proposal to your board, my talk will be about WTC-4 and WTC-6 and how FGNW address their demise, and therefore how this premise needs to be backported into the public's understanding of the towers and WTC-7.
With such a discussion, we won't need to find champions of DEW or NT, and both of those premises will be debunked as not applicable for WTC-4.
All the best,
// mcb
x588 Susan Serpa : Three yes, no nays
2024-10-18
Susan Serpa
Fri, Oct 18, 11:44 AM
to me, Alfred
Three yes, no nays. I need to wait for more at least one more to chime in. Patience, please.
x590 Susan Serpa : the vote is no
2024-10-19
Susan Serpa
Sat, Oct 19, 8:43 AM
to me, Alfred
Maxwell,
Sorry but the vote is no, because of your blog. People resented their real names being used and want a retraction and apology from you. For myself, I feel I have exposed myself as somewhat a public figure (since I run the zoom and the video is published publically), but I also understand that others may not feel that way, and agree that their desire for privacy should be respected.
x592 Susan Serpa : All the other Boston 9/11 Truth members you named objected
2024-10-20
Susan Serpa
Sun, Oct 20, 6:52 PM
to me, Alfred
7 to 2. All the other Boston 9/11 Truth members you named objected. I’m sure you can figure that out. The steering committee consists simply all who have contributed financially to Boston 9/1 Truth.
Boston 9/1 Truth.
x594 Maxwell C. Bridges : Seven-to-two is quite the deficit
2024-10-20
to Susan, Alfred
Dear Ms. Serpa and Mr. Magaletta,
Thank you for your openness. Seven-to-two is quite the deficit, so that means that at least half of those 14 lampooned are on the Boston 9/11 steering committee. When I wrote it, I thought only you two were on that committee. So to hit and annoy seven in one go? Guess the parody was closer to a bull's-eye than I thought!
Again, no apologies will be forthcoming from me until those offended identify themselves as such and the bad words quoted that were attributed to them and that hurt their feelings. Otherwise, the committee is just assigning busy-work that will be promptly ignored and will have no effect in changing votes or the situation. It has some appearance of a stalling tactic, just like what IC9/11Justice is doing with version 3 of my submission.
Speculations for not being on the committee: Jon Howland, Adam Ruff, Eric Sandstrom, Norman Swanepoel, and probably Adam Syed [5].
Speculation for being on the committee: Chris Bergier, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Richard Gage, Alfred Magaletta, Susan Serpa [6].
Don't know about: Gene and Sandra Laratonda, Craig McKee, Andy Steele.
So if I contribute to Boston 9/11 Truth, I could make the vote 7-to-3 someday? Woo-hoo!
This is quite the "meta discussion about whether or not to allow a legitimate discussion on a topic" and runs freakingly parallel to the gummiworm parody in its blackholing nature. It not only validates the truth underlying the parody, but inspires a chapter 2 rather than a retraction. More hay will be made. But not this year.
Now you might be inclined to think the parody is the reason for the denial. No, the denial actually happened first and was ongoing and concerted -- as alluded to in the parody --, and was the reason and inspiration for the parody. "Reason wasn't working; polite requests weren't working." Well, the mockery got a reaction. The existence of the parody, however, has simply become a convenient CYA excuse to vote 7-to-2 to continue the blackhole treatment.
As you can see, exotic nukes can't even get "a day in public court" to make its case (for WTC-4). Here I am, earnestly trying to get it legitimately debunked. As the parody states, if my premise was gummiworms, they'd be all over it and debunking the crap out of it. But not when the premise has Easter Eggs from all over the 9/11 record supporting it and is nuclear.
At any rate, I mentioned I don't need Boston 9/11 Truth. I can do a presentation on my own and record it.
The two members from Boston 9/11 Truth who voted for me are invited to join me for my private presentation at some later date (in 2024) and help with the asking questions in the Q&A.
However, I'll probably have an article written up on WTC-4 & 6 first, from which I'll data-mine it down to a PowerPoint presentation. For shits and giggles, I'll send the new article to IC911 and to the Boston 9/11 Truth, and see what sort of reception it gets for publishing and for scheduling a presentation. Then the path forward will be clear. The trend, however, suggests I should expect two big, fat rejections and will need to be prepared "to do it on my own."
All the best,
// mcb
x596 Maxwell C. Bridges : real-life continuation of what the parody mocks
2024-10-21
Below is my response on my blog to the real-life continuation of what the parody mocks.
Part 1/2
When I wrote the Gummiworms parody, I was under the mistaken impression that only two of its characters' namesakes were involved with Boston 9/11 Truth, Ms. Susan Serpa and Mr. Alfred Magaletta, who actually were depicted as protagonists and heroes and given good lines.
When I recently made my request to Boston 9/11 Truth to present early in 2025 a new topic -- WTC-4/6 exotic nukes --, it turns out that at least seven (7) voting members of its steering committee of nine (9) were named characters in the parody and seemed to have taken offense (and I'm not sure Ms. Serpa and/or Mr. Magaletta were in that group of dissenting votes.)
My request was denied (7-to-2 vote) until apologies are rendered and the parody retracted.
I can offer a blanket apology to all 14 real people on whom the parody's characters are based for the implications of cannabis and alcohol usage. With a title of "Gummiworms of 911 destroyed the WTC", the running gag in the fictional parody was that consumption of gummi-candies laced with THC somehow acted like a truth serum on the characters to get them overly chatty. A simple plot device to get the characters to act a little out-of-character from the real person. The death of Batman's Alfred and his SWATTING and assault by police were also plot devices of the fictional parody and not real things.
All 14 people have a public presence taking a stance on 9/11 Truth in public forums (not limited to Facebook.) To my knowledge, 13 of the 14 have participated in one or more recorded video meetings on the topic of 9/11, and those recordings are in the public domain. Further, 13 of the 14 have had some form of online engagement with me, even if it was one-sided; the 1 out of 14 who hasn't directly engaged me has had comments under the same public postings and even in the same threads as me.
There is no expectation of privacy in public, and satire and parody are protected forms of free speech under the first amendment. [Were it not so, SNL would have been canceled decades ago.]
Beyond the apology above, I'll be happy to author a detailed apology to any individual named as a character in the fictional parody if they identify (a) themselves with hurt feelings, and (b) the lines from the parody that hurt their feelings.
My personal apology to the individual will quote the offensive lines from the parody, provide insight into the intended but failed humor, offer historical context with quotes from actual interactions with the individual that gave rise to the situational hyperbole depicted in the parody, and conclude with a sincere apology for the humor that bombed (pun intended).
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Without the affected accusers stepping forward to scope limit the apologies, the request to apologize to all of those legitimately lampooned is viewed as assigning me busy-work that all know will be promptly ignored, won't be considered genuine, and won't move the needle towards approval of my new WTC-4 exotic nuke presentation.
But by golly, for the accusers who can identify their butt-hurt, looks like my apologies might become a series of parodies and subsequent chapters to the "Gummiworms of 9/11" book. Alas, a distraction from writing the exotic WTC-4 nukes presentation, but one that will be fun to author.
Presently, the framing from those on the steering committee is that the denial is in response to the parody. The parody (and its references) lampoon ongoing "blackhole treatment": the unfriending, the blocking, the deletion of comments, the filtering email unread into trash, the pre-banning, and the refusal to allow me to present the exotic 4th gen nuke thesis on any of their venues.
So the real "chicken-and-egg" sequence in this is that those public celebrities of 9/11 Truth have consistently evaded a rational discussion on exotic nukes, a "denial" that came well before the parody and subsequently became fodder within the parody. The latest denial is simply a new data point in the trendline of their blackholing treatment.
Of course, I understand that if I were unhinged, irrational, crazy, etc., taking the stance of non-engagement and "not feeding the trolls" would be appropriate. Certainly ignoring me would be appropriate if I acted online akin to the agenda-toting, intractable, stilted, brain-dead, disinfo trolls who champion "no planes at the WTC" and "Woodsian-DEW" (and probably Flat-Earth, Fake Moonlandings, and sexual predator Trump.) But I don't.
Alas, I have a blog legacy that documents just the opposite: rational, articulate, reasoned, researched, objective, open-minded, "high-road", persistence, consistency, evolution, etc. This is a CV that is admired and desired in most circles of intellectuals and sincere truth-seekers.
Those that oppose my premise can't even do it legitimately, like section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph, or even sentence-by-sentence. An engagement means taking the nuclear premise seriously for a brief moment. Such evidently would be a loss for the insincere and agenda-toting, so they'd rather suffer valid dings to their integrity, credibility, and reputations for being like a Trump and avoiding legitimate discussion.
It is not my objective to "nuke the 9/11 Truth Movement." But with such displays of unobjectivity and agenda-toting, their knee-jerk censoring actions made out of fear will create that reality.
FTR, apology, contrition, and making it right are the solution.
- Apology: for having been wrong about 9/11 exotic nukes and for having led the public, particularly the 9/11 Truth Movement, astray into weak theories that couldn't address a fraction of the anomalies.
- Contrition: repentance for sins one has committed. Like censorship and continuing the "Blackhole Treatment."
- Making it right: go out and correct the record publicly; correct your mistakes publicly; from the present into the future advocate for the evolution in 9/11 Truth that you've come to.
// Part 2/2 M. C. Bridges
x598 Susan Serpa : flinch at seeing my name in his play
2024-10-21
Susan Serpa
Maxwell C. Bridges for the record, I voted yes for Maxwell to return as guest speaker. I will not reveal who voted “no” however - that is up to those individuals to decide if they want to reveal themselves. While I did flinch at seeing my name in his play, I realize that because I facilitate the Boston 9/11 Truth zoom meetings and those meetings are made public via our website, YouTube and Rumble, that makes me somewhat a public figure, and therefore fair-game to criticism. And because of the controversial issue we are dealing with, I need to have a “thick skin” and not be too sensitive to criticism. But that just me. However, I DO understand and respect the desire for privacy of the other members of our voting committee.
x600 Maxwell C. Bridges : a good sport in the parody
2024-10-21
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Ms. Susan Serpa, I commend you for being a good sport in the parody. As mentioned, I only knew you and batman's Alfred were on the committee, so the channeling that allowed me to create the parody of certain 9/11 celebrities with whom I have dealt in the past seems like "pre-ordained destiny" and "a celestial sign of a bull's eye" that -- not two (2) but -- more than half of the 14 would have Venn overlap with the Boston 9/11 Truth steering committee.
I did not plan that, and had I known, I might have given them better lines as well "to grease the wheels" of me getting approval from my deviant WTC-4 exotic nukes presentation.
You wrote: "I DO understand and respect the desire for privacy of the other members of our voting committee."
No, I do not agree that voting individuals on the steering committee for a public group doing public outreach on a public topic has the luxury of privacy from their leadership affiliation being known. Such notions of privacy in this public endeavor is a false argument.
Alas I have no dog in this hunt to breech anyone's privacy, particularly when I write under a pseudonym.
But they can't have their cake and eat it, too. Because there was no way for the author of a parody to know that those being lampooned sit in so many seats of voting power, those committee members should have abstained from participating in the vote on the completely separate matter proposed by the author (WTC-4 exotic nukes), and not let their hurt feelings deprive the public from a calm, reasoned, researched, new 9/11 presentation. And if conflict of interest voting abstention is a bridge too far, their vote for the good of the public's interest on a new topic wouldn't be clouded by negative feelings from a parody, consequently removing the stipulation / blackmail "no approval until apology and retraction of parody."
Hurt feelings? That's a false argument, too.
Feelings of fear, maybe. For their reputations and legacy. In other words, they voted in their own personal interests -- in-your-face blackhole treatment -- and not in the interests of the public 9/11 group and the greater public in general, or of Truth.
The reason they want the parody retracted is that they did actively engage in "blackhole treatment." They did actively suppress things in their leadership roles of various 9/11 groups or endeavors. Substantiated themes of the parody.
As an aside, the suppression above is precisely why the trouble-some, repetitive Woodsian-DEWers are tolerated, are allowed to be so distractive, and aren't legitimately considered and debunked thoroughly (as I can do), because they need the drama and to associate this unfairly with all deviant premises (like mine) in order to justify bannings, denials, and blackhole treatment for the deviant premises (like mine) that they don't control.
Stated another way, Woodsian-DEW is a clever and crafted disinformation effort with psyops support. Some of the ongoing support of this disinformation is allowing it to exist without thorough and definitive debunking. Why? Good distraction, and they don't have to do anything with the nuggets of truths.
More bragging from me, but my hobby-horse and I are in a totally different category and in a different league.
Suppression only breeds more parody, and given the damning effects of the truths framing the parody, personal and public interests would be better served simply in giving a soapbox in the public forum for a presentation.
Quite ironic that the many documented instances over the years (and recently) of various 9/11 celebrities "blackholing" my hobby-horse (or me) and that the gummiworm trojan hobby-horse lampoons would be both exhibited and confirmed in their denial of approval for me to give a brand-new presentation on WTC-4 exotic nukes.
If I'm manipulating you, you can see it coming from miles away in the parody. Typically, though it is called influence and I use a "cohesive and rational argument."
But if the celebrities are manipulating you and stacking the vote to protect their own personal reputations and to control the 9/11 Truth message (from following Truth where ever it leads), well...
Keep your eyes open, Ms. Serpa. Maybe read the parody more closely particularly for the characters based off of voting members.
//
x602 Susan Serpa : you were very nice, now you’ve turned adversarial
2024-10-21
Susan Serpa
Maxwell C. Bridges you were very nice when we had you on last March and did a great presentation. But now you’ve turned adversarial. What happened to you? Where’s your respect for others?
x604 Maxwell C. Bridges : they've disrespected truth and misrepresented things
2024-10-21
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Ms. Susan Serpa, I'm not adversarial to you. And I am still on track to give another great presentation that you're invited to attend.
You asked what happened to me? My blog documents my evolution. Hell, the satire does a good job of laying it out and summarizing a history of blackhole treatment... by those taking the brunt of the humor.
What happened? Time went on. I'm now older than my father was when he passed. I recognize that my life could end any time, with each additional day being a blessing. Certain family responsibilities are no longer so great, freeing me, and now is the time to be more public and bring to fruition what has been percolating for many years.
I'm not adversarial. I am an adherent of truth. I've spent my tenure in the 9/11 Truth Movement working through the rabbit holes, discovering nuggets of Truth, eventually seeing the disinformation, and building the better case for WTC destruction despite it being the one that every one (leadership in 9/11 Truth) wants to bury.
Where's my respect for others? That isn't the right question.
The question is: where's their respect for the truth?
They've disrespected truth and misrepresented things, some of them consistently for years. The harvest is now for what they sowed.
Indeed that is a boastful statement and is founded on the validity of exotic nukes, another bold statement. How can I be so confident that exotic nukes are valid? Because all of my attempts to have the theory legitimately discussed has met with "ADVERSARIAL BEHAVIOR" and blackholing. I could even say that it was my hopes to have exotic nukes eventually legitimately debunked, so that I could return to the fold of the consensus 9/11 Truth Movement and "bah-bah" about nanothermite again. I was tempted to write "I failed in this regard to have a legitimate discussion." Actually, they failed. They won't host the discussion, and brag about that fact. They won't read my work, and brag about that fact. They won't get on the same literal page to have a discussion even to debunk it. They've dismissed me as a gadfly for years.
But now the gadfly has grown big off of their bullshit, meticulously collected.
Where you and I haven't known each other for very long, I have been known for years by others (McKee, Ruff, Syed, Chandler, Coste, even Gage who's never engaged me)... collected and organized in my legacy blog for years.
Think of those years as catapillar me gestating in my cacoon (or my windowless underground home-office bat-cave). What is happening now, like with me occassionally attending video conferences, is me stepping out of that comfort zone and stretching my butterfly wings.
I have always been adversarial to lies and those who spread them. It's my trigger.
However, I have had a strategy that involved getting my ducks in a row and working my way over years from the lower chambers through to the upper chambers of 9/11 thought and leadership. Ten+ years ago, I did send through the proper channels "the shot across the bow" to certain celebrities (Chandler, Gage) and the warning that nookie-doo was coming; take it seriously and be prepared.
I don't ever recommend reading my blog from A-Z, such a repetitive bore it has become even for me. Yet, still, it demonstrates persistence, fortitude, (efforts to get to) truth, sincerity, OCD (for truth)... And these traints consistently demonstrated and honed in debate make me quite the formidable butterfly challenger.
The vote 7-to-2 shows they know that, too.
It won't be me who nukes the 9/11 Truth Movement. It'll be the Truth that does that.
Let's talk about you, dear Ms. Serpa.
You are older than me and than my mother was when she passed away. I'm sure you've thought about your final days. Have you accomplished in your 9/11 Truther activism all that you hoped for? Assuming you read the parody to the end, have you thought about what accomplishments you would write into your 9/11 Truther obituary?
Here's some wild-ass crazy advice for you, dear Ms. Serpa.
Play along with me. Infiltrate my inner-circle, and be the spy on behalf of Boston 9/11 Truth for all I care. Be the lone attendee to my next presentation (if others won't attend). Humor me with questions that I can then man-splain.
One of two things will happen, but either one will be a feather in your hat and crowning achievement to put into your activism obituary.
(Path 1) You observe and even assist the exotic nuclear hobby-horse get slaughtered in legitimate battle. You'll be credited, if not for the debunking itself, then for having the foresight to set up a corral for the hobby-horse to fairly run around in and meet his doom. Debunking legitimately 9/11 nuclear involvement is an outcome sorely needed by the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world. Hero level achievement.
(Path 2) While sitting on the railing of the corral for the hobby-horse rodeo, you might observe it bucking off all riders and donkey-kicking their lame premises to the curb in legitimate and fair battle. More importantly, you might observe a slew of respected 9/11 celebrities completely avoiding the challenge, running away, and using the excuse of hurt feelings from public fair-use parodies for why they won't play, won't defend their own thesis, won't even acknowledge the exotic nuke thesis. You will no longer be "blinded by science" and will see the true infiltration and "steering" of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Even as an observer, you'll be credited for assisting in legitimately vetting 9/11 nuclear involvement -- the flip-side outcome sorely needed by the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world. Not just hero level achievement to top the list in your truther obituary in that moment, but the figurative catalyst that nuclear energizes all other areas of 9/11 (and other) activistm that will overshadow in the future your aforemention hero status for vetting nukes.
You've heard the expressions: "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer," and "the best way to control the opposition is to lead it."
Assuming that the seven-out-of-nine voters consider me an enemy and probably bad mouth me to no end [whereby my parody of them bad-mouthing me pales in comparison], then your role as infiltrator spy to my gadfly efforts would be lauded.
Two of my super-powers are being naive and trusting until given reason not to be. It's how I was able to spelunk down all of those disinfo rabbit-holes. I trusted until I was given reason not to. I trusted all of the big celebrities in my parody, until I was given reason not to. So, you could easily infiltrate my inner-circle and I'll be all naive and trusting, and it could go on that way for years, because my naive and trusting nature hopes I'll never be given a reason to be any different even though I oughta have doubts from the get-go [from the seven-out-of-nine company you keep.]
Ground floor opportunity to be a truther-spy, Ms. Serpa!
//
x606 Susan Serpa : don’t need to be a spy
2024-10-21
Susan Serpa
Maxwell C. Bridges I don’t need to be a "spy". My search for what really happened is well-known, that I will give floor to any analysis. So, sure I’ll will look forward to your presentation, on another platform. But I will continue to respect the votes and privacy of our Boston 9/11 Truth voting committee. And I will continue to treat others with respect, even those who I might disagree with. And I expect the same from them. As a mother and grandmother I KNOW all babies are born innocent. They can only turn “bad” because of life experiences (or chemical poisoning) that sour their natural nature. I believe the best way to reach others IS with respect and not hostility. Work on finding the common element and build from there. It’s more work, but in the long run more effective. One achieves more with honey than acid.
x608 Maxwell C. Bridges : suffer figurative nuclear side-effects on integrity and reputation
2024-10-21
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Ms. Susan Serpa, It is a moot point for us to be discussing "rights of privacy" of the voting committee members of a public group, because I don't care, and I'm not pressuring you to reveal anything.
As a double-agent spy, you can relay the message back that those alleged offended individuals will not have their hurt feelings validated if they don't come forward themselves with their complaints. Detailed complaining about the parody can be made in the comments below the parody.
*Leaning in with a conspiratorial whisper* And if they take the bait, the gummiworm trojan hobby-horse parody will have achieved the first of its dastardly goals: opening a dialog.
You also seem to imply that the parody was disrespectful. No, quite the opposite. Just like when lampooning on SNL is an indication of high levels of worldly success for the lampoonee, and it is not an occasion to be a poor sport; the best outcomes happen when the lampoonee "leans into it" a little, proving them humble, willing to laugh at themselves, and having a sense of humor.
Furthermore, respect is a continium and range, and doesn't have to be positive. Mockery is the level of respect that is deserved at this hour. [And as you spot check throughout my blog, you'll find only small patches of mockery, and nothing so grand and flowing as the gummiworms of 9/11, making it a real one-off.]
Polite requests weren't working; reasoning wasn't working; insults weren't working. Change the tactic to mockery, and bam, seven-of-nine are offended about a parody. Reaction means its working. I have their attention.
I do have positive respect for the celebrities, and to prove it, I will offer them the solution to repairing their integrity and reputations.
"Acknowledge my hobby-horse objectively; address it rationally; discuss it legitimately; accept it for addressing wider-swaths of anomalous evidence; champion it going forward; apologize for having misled others with lesser 9/11 theories."
Any efforts contrary to the above will suffer figurative nuclear side-effects on integrity and reputation. Such blackholing and stonewalling efforts, clearly agenda-toting, will nuke themselves and their corner of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
//
x610 Maxwell C. Bridges : want a retraction and apology
2024-10-30
to Susan, Alfred
Dear Ms. Serpa and Mr. Magaletta,
You wrote: "Sorry but the vote is no, because of your blog."
By how much? What was the tally? And who are the naysayers of the 9?
You wrote: "People resented their real names being used and want a retraction and apology from you."
Which people? Specific names that I used in my parody please. And are they among the nine on the steering committee for the Boston 9/11 Truth organization and voting in the matter?
In alphabetical order: Chris Bergier, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Richard Gage, Jon Howland, Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda, Gene Laratonda, Craig McKee, Alfred Magaletta, Adam Ruff, Eric Sandstrom, Susan Serpa, Andy Steele, Norman Swanepoel, and Adam Syed.
Without this information, I cannot write an apology tailored to the offended person and the alleged offense.
With the information, I will go through each line attributed to them and give my heart-felt apologies for the alleged offense in the fictional parody and what was supposedly wrong with the humor. I'll be thorough. I'll even cross-reference to the actual exchanges that form the truth underneath the parody.
But hey! That promises to be a big writing assignment, even bigger than the original. It wouldn't have been a parody if every sentence attributed to someone was out of character. So, those offended are going to need to give me some direction on what lines twisted their knickers.
If someone doesn't complain, then they understand parody, probably thought it was funny (at the expense of others at least), weren't offended, and therefore don't need an apology.
It sounds like busy-work to make me apologize to all fourteen of the 9/11 celebrities mocked. Are we even sure that all fourteen have been to my blog to read my fictional mockumentary about them? Consider this task added to your to-do list to reach out to each of the 14 celebrities to make sure they are aware of being mocked, and to collect their knee-jerk reactions and over-reactions to relay back to me so my apologies can be true and effective.
You wrote: "For myself, I feel I have exposed myself as somewhat a public figure (since I run the zoom and the video is published publicly)."
Everybody except for Mr. Jon Howland is a public figure and 9/11 celebrity, because all have appeared and participated in 9/11 Zoom-style video conferences, if they didn't already have leadership, instrumental, or presentation roles in those recorded meetings. Mr. Howland, however, is involved with a Facebook 9/11 group but gave me a thumb's up (after the fact) for his straight-man depiction! Also, everybody except for Mr. Andy Steele has had engagement with me. [The Mr. Steele character was a straight-man to the parody, so doesn't have a lot to complain about.] Although not quite a celebrity, Mr. Eric Sandstrom in the parody was given in places his own direct quotes, so not like he was being disrespected there.
You wrote: "I also understand that others may not feel that way, and agree that their desire for privacy should be respected."
You should maybe watch some 1st amendment auditor videos, because the message is "there is no expectation of privacy in public settings." Their desire for "privacy" regarding what they did "in public" does not trump my first amendment rights to write parody about those same public activities. If there was any defamation of character, it was what those 9/11 celebrities "said" about me in the published parody, and I'm the one who should be complaining about their defamatory words about me. [Nevermind that I wrote it.]
I might understand "others" and their feelings if I knew who was complaining and what exactly they were complaining about in the parody. I have the right to face my accusers. Nothing like a "meta discussion about a discussion" to totally distract from the discussion desired ever happening in the first place. And when I face those accusers, it'll be like a gummiworm trojan hobby-horse.
The ball, therefore, is back in your court. The onus is on them to point out where my fictional parody offended them and caused them monetary damage.
Here's something you need to recognize. The parody writes about the "blackhole treatment" that my 9/11 hobby-horse has received in real-life and not in parody and at the hands of the celebrities and documented in the reference section (which should piss them off the most if they were being objective and thorough.) Yet, in the decision to cancel and censor my Boston 9/11 Truth presentation on WTC-4 exotic nukes, the feelings of certain public 9/11 celebrities being mocked in the parody for their proven "blackhole treatment" somehow trumps and then ironically, and with disinfo intent, makes the very decision itself an example of FURTHER blackholing (and deserving of mockery).
You're being used to silence a Truth seeker and Truth speaker.
Ergo, this is how I'm going to proceed. I'm going to start putting together my WTC-4 nuclear presentation and aiming for January 7th, and assuming Boston 9/11 Truth is going to reverse course in the meantime. Lots of time for that to happen and behind-the-scenes battles to be fought that I know nothing of. [So don't be assigning my January 7th slot to anyone else.] This presentation is really where my focus should be, and also really where YOU (Boston 9/11 Truth) want me to have my focus, because you want a good presentation of Truth.
You don't want me distracted with other writing assignments. Like what? Like the apology I write for each celebrity who says they were offended and the quoted sentences from a fictional parody that offended them, along with cross-references into actual exchanges that are foundational to the truth in the parody. Because that effort -- regardless of the seriousness with which I tackle it -- is sounding a lot like a series of additional parodies, which, I'm finding, are very fun to write! That's a side-effect of your request that you can see coming from miles away, and so easy to avoid. And what do I do if they are offended by the information contained in the Reference section and is the truth that underlies the humor in the parody?
And patriots in Boston 9/11 Truth, you don't really want me retracting my mockumentary from my blog. Because if this is the direction that you insist be taken, it becomes ironically fodder for a parody in its own right where the obvious joke is to tar-and-feather (figuratively) you alleged Boston patriots as "constitution-shitting traitors who don't believe in the protections of the first amendment."
I gave the following line to Wayne Coste, but could have been given to any of the celebrities. I added some emphasis below.
"Wayne Coste: The gummiworm theory may very well be a trojan horse, and its little exotic hobby-horse gestating inside is just chomping at the bit to jump out and nuke the 9/11 Truth Movement."
Not my goal, to "nuke the 9/11 Truth Movement." I don't need to, because you -- in this very moment with the decision rendered -- are demonstrating how figurative nuclear fall-out will play out on your integrity and your reputations. You're handling very badly the opportunity for a fair hearing and first amendment expression of my presentation.
The above? That's reasoning, reasonable, rational.
In summary:
I'll be on schedule for a WTC-4 nukes presentation on 2025-01-07.
I will write an apology for each person offended once I know what offended them in the fictional parody. Without that information, no apology is possible, and thus no knee-jerk global retraction is triggered.
Shame on you, Boston 9/11 Patriots, for suggesting a subjugation of my first amendment rights by blackmailing me with "either retract something unrelated or don't present on what is relevant and sorely needed."
Don't distract me with 9/11 bullshit that lends itself to further mocking. Keep me focused on my deviant 9/11 premise.
By the way. if the present decision, based on a parody, to censor me from giving a presentation on my new WTC-4 exotic nukes persists, I do have the ability with Zoom to record myself and give my presentation alone. The Q&A will suck, though. I will plod away as I've always done, without the benefit of larger platforms amplifying and echoing my message immediately. My blog shows nothing but patience. [It isn't about me, but Truth.]
I don't need your bigger platforms:
Boston 9/11 Truth;
Craig McKee's Truth and Shadows podcast with Adam Ruff;
Gene and Sandra's 9/11 War Room; or
Andy Steele's 9/11 Free Fall.
You need me. You need to host me, and before my premise grows virally to become the consensus, so you can say you were in on the ground floor and instrumental in the bandwagon even happening for all others to jump aboard. Only those open-minded enough and objective enough to allow "space" for fair presentation and discussion on their platforms of this "blackhole" topic will be spared from the figurative nuclear fall-out to reputations. When the 9/11 exotic nukes seed finally germinates, it will blossom and bear blushing honors for those who gave it sunshine and watered it, for it is that which will nuclear energize all other avenues of 9/11 research and activism and conspiracy elsewhere as well.
Alas, those who stone-walled it and "blackholed" it, they'll have a tougher row to hoe later. Only apologies and "Saul/Paul" transformations will keep at bay the fatal figurative radiation to their reputations and lore, the part of the 9/11 truth movement that gets nuked.
You can see these outcomes coming at you from miles away, and when you can still alter course so as to not "nuclear blast" your reputations. The wise counsel I give is to fight FOR me to be able to present my premise, not AGAINST me. Let it happen; don't be the gatekeeper or the tool of others who suppress 9/11 truth.
Yours truly,
// Maxwell C. Bridges
Part 25: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine
x612 Lawrence Fine : deep in the bedrock
2024-12-09
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911CONSENSUS/posts/8526245640807397/?comment_id=8584390798326214&reply_comment_id=8587782517987042
Lawrence Fine
What happened, deep in the bedrock, seconds before the collapse of WTC-1, 2, and 7, and WTF about WTC-4?
x614 Maxwell C. Bridges : WTF about WTC-4
2024-12-18
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, how coincidental that part of your meme would ask "WTF about WTC-4"!!!
It just so happens that the publication of my WTC-4 research is "something new under the sun" with regards to 9/11.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
Of course, it doesn't need to be discussed here in this thread. You can simply approve one of postings to the group that sit in your approval queue.
//
<
x616 Lawrence Fine : to share and promote my work
2024-12-18
Lawrence Fine
Maxwell C. Bridges 9/11 Synthesis was created to share and promote my work which I’ll be glad to present to you and others on a zoom call.
You are free to share the link you provided in comments here but I will not accept it as as a featured article as you and I disagree on the destructive process.
You have a substantial following with Boston and Genes War Room.
x618 Maxwell C. Bridges : error with assumptions about substantial following
2024-12-18
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, you say this group is about promoting your work -- and it does -- and it promotes other information. Case in point, I know my gummiworm parody you let me published is here. I may have 2 or 3 others over the years. Thus your enforcement is willy nilly, not that I want you to go and actively post-censor my postings from here.
You also error with assumptions about substantial following with Boston 911 and war room. I thought only 2 of Boston steering committee of 9 was character-named in the parody. Turns out it hit 7 of 9, and they are tying a presentation of WTC-4 by me to the deletion of the parody or other butt hurt things. So any presentation I do won't be under their advertising or scheduled zoom conference dates.
As for Gene -- as brought out in the parody -- had pre-banned me from the war room for eviscerating nanothermite that he actively is now proven to run away from defending. Craig McKee and Adam Ruff won't have me even on an ambush panel of their choosing against me alone on my fgnw hobbyhorse.
So support for me is waning. You're it, if I can get you to publish it. That is in your best interest, and think of it as a corral to contain my Eifer. You don't really want your suggestion, which effectively gives me permission to interject my links anywhere and distract on-going threads.
You say that our views differ, which is why you don't want to approve my posting about WTC-4. How? Rake my theory over the coals for its errors and misleadings... but not here under this posting and thread, but a corral of it's own to limit its slaughter spread.
Have you read it yet? You need to even to be able to say we disagree.
//
x620 Lawrence Fine : a rambling dissertation
2024-12-19
Lawrence Fine
Maxwell C. Bridges
A rambling dissertation promoting atomic disassociation.
9/11 Synthesis position is that the device, f, s, t, f whatever design and designation was utilized to produce a subsidence beneath the core structures of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
WTC 4 was damaged by the South Towers east sides perimeter columns which were blown laterally and then, effectively brought down by a force many of us recognize.
GRAVITY.
According to the damage reports, the BASEMENT levels were heavily damaged, yet the building did NOT collapse.
My study and analysis, short, concise, simple and to the point:
https://lorenzonine.wixsite.com/nineelevensynthesis/ground-zero-building-4-deta
x622 Lawrence Fine : credits the immense temperature off the blasts
2024-12-19
Lawrence Fine
Maxwell C. Bridges and yes, I have reviewed your analysis.
Our difference is that methods and means of destruction.
My analysis credits the immense temperature off the blasts. Their ability to vaporize, melt and shatter the bedrock.
The objective, to create a hole under the core structures.
x624 Maxwell C. Bridges : lacks details and as faulty points
2024-12-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, Your premise lacks details to be credible, such as how energy -- in whatever form -- got from "beneath the core structures" to 20-30 floors just beneath the top before exhibiting destruction and dustification? What made that level special to be the start? Why wasn't the rest of the structure through which your energy -- in whatever form -- traveled affected at all levels as visible leakage?
You say that you read my new WTC-4 premise ("Exotica 911 Blackhole #4") but you seemingly got no take-aways from it. Here's something I should have made a bigger deal out of, I suppose. But the reason why neither the government nor the infiltrated leaders of ae911truth provided a scientific paper on GRAVITY and the lattice of perimeter columns from WTC-2 falling onto WTC-4 is that they quickly ran into the same problems that I did. (a) The lattice wasn't full tower width and had a width much less than the damaged WTC-4 main edifice. (b) The energy equations of this belly-flopping lattice does not translate into being sufficient for it to crush and absolutely pulverize through 9 stories to ground-level, dustifying portions of WTC-4 that it didn't even hit and had no remnants of wall assemblies close enough to suggest anything.
Please provide a link to your WTC-4 damage reports, because I have not seen anything to suggest the basement of WTC-4 was heavily damaged. Just the contrary; once they were able to jerry-rig power to the fault, it functioned as normal and let them in to retrieve the massive amounts of gold and silver (and coins), with nary a reference to having to retrieve it from underneath crush rubble from the floors above it. Further, there is no indication that nukes beneath WTC-4 zapped any portion of the vaults and melted gold/silver bars or precious coins.
Your analysis "crediting the immense temperature of the blasts" is another faulty point, because you are too stubborn to explore the breadth of effects that Dr. Andre Gsponer's FGNW can accomplish, whereby nuclear yields of heat wave and blast wave can be dialed down while other yields -- such as the release of highly energetic neutrons -- can be dialed way up (as one example, but the one I use.) The difference and significance is the neutrons passing through material leave energy behind throughout the molecular structure of the material. That energy takes the form of heat. But it is quite a different dustification event when the whole molecular structure of something is suddenly very hot and ablating versus a directional heat wave from the ignition location doing damage.
All of your speculation for below WTC-4 has no motivation, no objectives, no profit, and completely malframes the significance of the geological surveys provided throughout the life of the WTC complex -- improving with technology.
You say that putting a hole under the core structure (of what? You only reference WTC-4.) was an objective. How so? What did it achieve? It did it help or hinder the recovery of the treasures from the vaults? Refer to reference note 103 and 104 in my new work.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
//
x626 Lawrence Fine : good grief
2024-12-19
Lawrence Fine
Maxwell C. Bridges good grief
x628 Maxwell C. Bridges : I concur with "good grief"
2024-12-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, I concur with your sentiment "good grief" after attempting to read you scholarly work on WTC-4. I admit that my response above came from just scanning it where again the missing details and explanation were glaring. But after scanning your work two more times, that was really all I could do was scan, because there wasn't much to actually read in terms of words, let alone analysis.
"Good grief", when I tried to learn what you think is the significance of William Rodriguez, I find this: "This is the account of his version of events…" followed by no such verbiage! In other words, good grief, can't you even quote someone else's work properly and remove the filler lead-in for shit that your lame copy isn't going to even have?
Also, "good grief", just because you can put moving clouds or a starry night behind your middle centered large font yellow text, doesn't mean you should, particularly if you are aiming to be a scholarly work that hopes to be read and studied. Your blog postings literally give your readers headaches, and seem to have all manner of distraction (not enhancement) from your analysis -- that I have a hard time finding and then a harder time still validating and giving significance to.
But maybe I misunderstand your goals. Maybe you don't want to be considered in a serious manner, and scanning is all you hoped for, so distracting from the weak analysis text requires such poor formatting choices.
You may be all butt-hurt about my review of your "work", but it isn't personal; it's to improve your work and bring it to the level it needs to be, particularly if you're going to hold it up as being the end-station, the jizzle, and all that, and as a logical alternative to "the nonsense" you think that my work spews. Only a friend, or somebody at least who didn't have an axe to grind against you, would give you such frank criticism of your work and suggestions for improvements. Hell, in all these years, I couldn't even get 9/11 journalist-extraoridinaire Mr. Craig McKee to review any of my work to point out its typos (I service I did provide him for every one of his articles where I identified typos and errors.) Frank feedback to improve the work should be valued, even if it temporarily bruises the ego.
//
x630 Maxwell C. Bridges : Some points for improvement
2024-12-19
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, I apologize for this new comment, fresh on the heels of my last one, and with the same "good grief!" exasperation, but this time from scanning through your 9/11 Synthesis FB group.
GOOD GRIEF, Mr. Fine! Some troll has thoroughly spammed your group with a repeat (near meaningless) meme: "What happened, deep in the bedrock, seconds before the collapse of WTC-1, 2, and 7, and WTF about WTC-4?" The troll postedg the same meme at least twice a month or more going back to last spring at least!
Some points for improvement: (1) Delete all clones of the posting that don't have comments. (2) If what comments a clone has are meaningless drivel or made under other clones, remove the bad clones. (3) IMPORTANT: Because this meme has significance for you where you seem to want to have discussion, go to the three dots in the upper right-hand corner of the clone [with comments] that you want to keep and PIN it to the top of this group. Then, no more clones.
Just from scanning your group and noting the sheer amount of cloning and spamming of this (weak) meme, anyone can see that you've watered-down and distorted (in a negative way) the significance of your FB group, as well as YOUR work that you were trying to highlight and promote.
//
x632 Lawrence Fine : good grief
2024-12-19
Lawrence Fine
Maxwell C. Bridges that troll is yours truly Mr. Maxwell Bridges ??.
There are a few people who have answered the question.
Now, I should add a schedule post posing the question:
WTF??Fiterman Hall?
x634 Maxwell C. Bridges : That was a scheduled post?!!
2024-12-19
Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, It makes more sense since you dropped the phrase "add a schedule post". When you start scrolling through your FB wall, you'll readily see why you should stop that scheduled posting, delete unanswered clone postings, and disabuse yourself of temptation to ever schedule a re-occuring posting every again.
This should then answer with "no" your question about adding a schedule post for Fiterman Hall.
Such scheduled postings really spam your FB group and make other content harder to find. It waters everything down for marginal gain.
//
Part 26: Meta-Discussions about FGNW-Discussions with Boston 9/11 Truth
x636 Susan Serpa : Wayne Coste and Craig McKee on Boston 9/11 Truth 1-1-2024
2025-01-03
Link to the video here:
https://rumble.com/v65j6gj-wayne-coste-and-craig-mckee-jan.-2.-2025.html
The recording started prematurely, so there's meaningless banter for the first 5 1/2 minutes.
Wayne has sent me his slide presentation. When I have the slide presentation from Craig, I will send both out at the same time to you all.
The chat was CRAZY! A small group sent about a 100 messages, more or less, on completely unrelated content that did not address the specific topic at hand.
Related chat messages are lost in the flood of the unedited chat; so I split those messages out into a separate document. Both the unedited and edited chats are attached here.
x638 Maxwell C. Bridges : interesting scores for the number of comments
2025-01-03
Dear Ms. Serpa,
I endeavored to remain on-topic. Plopping that unedited file into Word and searching on various names gave interesting scores for the number of comments.
Norman: 70
Adamf: 39
Detonator: 29
Adam Ruff: 25
Michael Cook: 18
TJ Step: 11
Magnus : 9
Bridges: 9 (+ 4 reactions)
Adam Ruff likes to associate the actions of the top-three commenters with me, putting them into the same category for banishment. Except at the beginning to give zoom advice, I didn't even speak.
Whereas I have completed and posted my research on WTC-4, I'm delayed in making that a power-point or PDF.
I'll put the decision in your court. Review my WTC-4 and let me know when I can get on the schedule to present it. Based on that date and deadline, I'll put forth some effort.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
//
x640 Susan Serpa : I do not decide who gets to be our guest speaker
2025-01-03
I do not decide who gets to be our guest speaker. I present suggestions to the Boston 9/11 Truth voting committee and we go with whomever gets a majority vote.
However, there are those who feel insulted by your blogs. That doesn’t help to win votes on the committee.
Besides we are already booked up with speakers until March. I will be away overseas much of January, but if you remind me in February I will put your name as a suggestion to Committee when I return.
x642 Maxwell C. Bridges : time of request nobody on the schedule
2025-01-05
Dear Ms. Serpa,
Your role as infiltrator-spy to my deviant (but truthful) efforts is simply to pass along to the committee the information that I have completed my initial WTC-4 analysis and published it. They should read it and decide whether or not a presentation is worthwhile to Boston 9/11 Truth's purpose and audience.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
But take mental notes about the nay-sayers and why. If they (claim to) read the thesis and are seemingly dogmatic "no nukes on 9/11 period" (which would possibly be Richard Gage, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Gene Laratonda, Adam Ruff) well that actually is a vote in favor of me presenting so they can openly address the thesis with their counter arguments (which -- clock starting *now* -- they have ample time to research and address section-by-section) and really debunk the shit out of it in the Q&A to the presentation.
On the other hand, if the naysayers are such because they are allegedly butt-hurt about my "blogs" (plural), that is a different story. I assume you mean "blog postings" and plural. If there is more than one blog posting that offends them, that fact would be quite revealing, because the other postings are collections of valid exchanges with them in public settings and emails where legitimate 9/11 discussion was attempted. If they aren't happy with their performance and it being re-purposed and more permanent on the internet (and in a forum that I control), that realization should have come to them right at the start of their poor performance. (Adam Ruff, Gene Laratonda, and Norman fit into this category.) Over time, the entirety of my blog (and former website) evolved into me re-purposing my sincere efforts just to have a discussion about 9/11 truth and my thesis. In this day and age, anyone coming into discussion with me would have plenty of time to know my zeal and tactics (a) from any blog links I included, were they then to explore the blog or (b) from googling me and finding my blog. Completely exposes my game plan in any and all venues.
Now if their butt-hurt comes from only one blog posting -- "Gummiworms of 9/11 Destroyed the WTC" --, I have already publicly apologized for the drug-themed premise.
If there is more that they are butt-hurt about, the onus is on them to "adult-up" and publicly identify the exact passages that hurt their feelings [as would be done by their lawyer in a court of law, were it a defamation case.] My blog supports comments (although much shorter in length than FB or substack); via you, they will know my email if they didn't already. I can't apologize for something that offended that I am not aware of. However, given that I haven't heard anything except through you, those butt-hurt must have seen what was linked in the Reference section, which essentially substantiates much of the (bad or foolish) characterization attributed to individuals in the parody, like the fictional conversations between Gene Laratonda, Craig McKee, Adam Ruff, and Norman discussing the non-fictional instances of them un-friending me, deleting my comments, filtering my emails to trash, and pre-banning me from discussion panels, etc. Total unobjectivity and closed-mindedness on display.
You wrote: "Besides we are already booked up with speakers until March".
Right, but at the time I made my request and reserved a slot, Boston 9/11 had nobody on the schedule from December on and were begging for speakers. Then Boston 9/11 with December still wide open purposely booked the early January slot that I desired (by someone named in the parody but not mocked). It's as if speakers suddenly appeared in the schedule to cock-block me!!!
As infiltrator-spy, inform your Boston 9/11 Patrons about the adage "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Because I don't drink the NT-Kool-aid and can legitimately and technically debunk NT and fill its void with something more plausible, it is okay in this instance (and Adam Ruff will probably insist) to call me "the enemy".
Keeping me closer would be inviting me to give my WTC-4 thesis to Boston 9/11 Truth (even in a special session), because then a well versed and researched "nookie-doo-doo" ambush panel could set the record straight. Afterwards, you would have control over the recording and the URL.
But if I'm not kept close, I get to control the presentation, the Q&A,, the recording, and the URL. And I get to make fresh hay out of all who were invited to participate and didn't show... in brand-new parodies.
Nothing exhibits latter-day nuclear-fallout onto the reputations & integrity of, say, individuals on the Boston 9/11 committee quite like (a) not allowing to happen or participating in a legitimate 9/11 nuclear discussion because they were butt-hurt over characterizations in a parody that they weren't even adult enough to identify, or (b) attempting and failing to debunk the thesis and -- instead of evolving and apologizing -- soldiering-on anyway with weaker limited-hang-out premises. Such is my hobby-horse's dangerous radioactivity!
You know how you can tell when two premises A and B are disinformation? When neither A nor B will legitimately and thoroughly address the other's points one-by-one and come to a clear winner that champions of A and B can both evolve into championing. If A is nanothermite, B is Woodsian-DEW.
I'm a lone-wolf (or lone-nut) riding a deviant hobby-horse "neu nookie doo" premise C, and (see blog postings) I have legitimately and thoroughly addressed premise A's and B's points one-by-one and come out a clear winner (to latter-day lurker reader's judgment). It testifies to the insincerity of A's and B's ardent champions that they can't evolve their 9/11 understanding.
The WWII bomber pilots used to say, "if you aren't getting flak, then you're not over the target."
My wild-ass bat-shit crazy speculation about "team Norman or 9/11 Revisionist". Coincidence that his South African time zone is that of Mossad is Israel? He complained he wouldn't attend my FGNW-in-the-category-of-DEW presentation due to its time, 1:30 am his time. Yet there he was in that very time-slot and spamming the McKee-Coste debate comments! And not his first time, either.
Revisionist's content is shallow and lacks depth, which its poor formatting and style choices (e.g., large font white text on black background) tries to mask. I'm astonished by the amount and frequency of the content on his substack. Whereas an individual could ultimately muster the skills to publish a lot of content regularly over a short period of time, one of two "P's" are in play: "passion" or "pay check". Revisionist's work reflects more "paid to post" than "passion for truth." And if you're willing to pay an individual, you can pay a team. Or make it a class assignment for "Disinformation 101" at the Mossad top psy-ops school. Were it "passion", it would be better written, researched, discussed, and defended. Well before last Thursday's McKee vs Coste about a light pole debate, team Norman had composed off-list its script of what it was going to post in the comments.
My myoptic and self-centered view of the situation. Because premises A and B (NT and Woodsian-DEW) won't legitimately debunk the other because such efforts risk mutual destruction, they don't exist in stalemate. They exist to tag-team against valid premises C (FGNW). My ego says that Norman saw that I was attending the Boston 9/11 meeting, so instigated its premeditated spamming of the comments, possibly in hopes of getting more of an engagement out of participants (e.g., me) so that I could be swept up with the same wide-broom and banned for bad spamming behavior. Alas, the rational side of me also recognizes that had I not attended, team Norman still would have posted his script of spamming because some of the links were curated to the Pentagon discussion or participants.
I differ from team Norman, because I'm not a team and my "passion" is evident in the quality of my work and its (in)frequency. I'm not running away from team Norman; they are running from me. Team NT has read my criticisms, knows NT is weak, and have no regainers to the evidence that substantiates nuclear involvement. Testament to the "team discipline" is how nookiedoo has gotten no converts from ardent champions from either team A or B.
Boston 9/11 Truth; similar situation. I'm not running away from them; they are running away from my thesis and are using butt-hurt to explain away their reluctance to pursue truth. Indeed, to legitimately tackle nookiedoo by Richard Gage and David Chandler?!! Oh wow... If any tiny thing from the thesis is validated even partially in the minds of an objective audience, it could "nuke" their reputations, undoubtedly. The only thing that can save and redeem them is: "embracing truth, publicly EVOLVE their 9/11 understanding, and apologize for having championed inferior premises in the past."
Scheduling? You snooze, you lose, I've got some other deadlines in work, Masonry, and skiing for January and into February, whereby squeezing my passion into my free time can only take one of two forms. Either I prepare the WTC-4 presentation intended for a special session of Boston 9/11, or I prepare a new constitutionally protected first amendment free speech parody to feature Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. James Fetzer, David Chandler, and Richard Gage along with some of the others from the first parody in a more concise but truthfully damning funny expose. Based on past performance, I'm betting the parody will be preferred, because allowing the presentation might legitimately bring to the forefront issues in 9/11 leadership that the parody can only mock and they can readily ignore while remaining butt-hurt.
Indeed. I am deliberately repeating "butt-hurt" to push buttons on their butt-hurt and get action. The purpose of the parody was to inspire legitimate nuclear discussion, finally. For people to see how unfairly, unobjective, and uncharitable their actions in the past were to the thesis. My premise -- my side of the debate -- is already published for review and rebuttal. Too bad that the parody and even this email exchange is a "meta-discussion", a discussion about allowing a legitimate discussion of thesis C. Can you see how skewed that is? How fake as a butt-hurt that is? Given my documented legacy of sincere, rational, reasoned, scientific efforts, Boston 9/11 Truth's reluctance to entertain my presentation seemingly can only be answered as an agenda that is not "discovery of the truth of 9/11" [which only vetting or debunking in a legitimate fashion would exhibit.]
Oops. Looks like your infiltrator-spy activity has unwittingly gotten chatty and verbose me to reveal my dastardly plans and playbook as I drop some Masonic innuendo with such "Revelation of Method". Why do those in power do such? It helps absolve them of karmic effects, because if their "potential victims" -- having been told what would happen -- takes no actions to prepare, the bad karma is the "potential victim's" and not the power figure. Not that I have any real power except Truth, which is very persistent. It isn't hurt butts that are at stake; hurt reputations and hurt integrity are, if the thesis continues to be handled in the black-holing and alleged butt-hurt manner.
Reputations and integrity. Reputations and integrity. Reputations and integrity. AT RISK!!!
About to be "nuked" through their owner's own non-actions.
Save reputations and integrity: "allow truth to be legitimately discussed, embrace truth, publicly EVOLVE 9/11 understanding, and apologize for having championed inferior premises in the past."
All the best to the Boston 9/11 Truth steering committee!
// M. C. Bridges
x644 Susan Serpa : problem with your calling me an infiltrator
2025-01-05
I have no problem with your thesis and your work. But I do have a problem with your calling me an infiltrator.
And I do have a problem with your tone. It’s very hard to take seriously someone who writes in such a juvenile comic book style, with so much attention being given to differences and pejoratives at others. The committee had voted you down in December. I wish you could understand it does your work no good to slam others with juvenile, flinch-worthy phrases like “butt-hurt”, “cock-block”, etc.
You call for others to “adult-up”. I’m calling for you to grow-up. Once you get past puberty, I communicate with you again.
x646 Maxwell C. Bridges : you're privy and an infiltrator to my inner-most plans
2025-01-05
Dear Ms. Serpa,
You are an infiltrator-spy (in a joking manner). You and I are in communication, which makes you privy and an infiltrator to my inner-most plans. You pass these onto Boston 9/11 Truth committee. You also pass to me tiny insights into Boston 9/11 Truth steering committee. Ergo, you fulfill the role we previously discussed about you being an infiltrator-spy. It's okay. I'm okay with it.
Oh, no!!! Ms. Serpa has problems with "my tone"!!! Heaven's to Betsy and me-oh-my, how can I ever redeem myself and improve my tone!!!
If my tone comes across out of tune, so is the resonance of truth to the discordant frequencies of those believing in incomplete thesis, half truths, and protected & defended lies. The resonance of truth can shake apart prior alliances and relationships, particularly in people you revered and thought you could trust. Your anger really isn't at me or my tone, but what the truth's resonant frequencies can unleash in your thinking about 9/11 and organized 9/11 Truth.
You wrote: "I have no problem with your thesis and your work."
Prove it! Defend it and champion it. Help me get my day in court.
IT ISN'T THE MESSENGER THAT COUNTS, BUT THE MESSAGE.
So if it is true what you say that you have no problems with my thesis, then you fight to get it on the immediate schedule.
Better yet, let's have YOU record yourself in a Zoom meeting with just yourself (if you want) simply READING word-for-word and screen sharing my WTC-4 blog article section-by-section, looking at images, etc. [Same treatment could be provided my FGNW article: reading and sharing while recording.]
Post the videos to Boston 9/11 Truth repositories and provide links elsewhere to them.
You wrote: "it does your work no good to slam others with juvenile, flinch-worthy phrases"
Oh, don't be giving power over rational thought to wrong and weak things!
First of all, the reason any "juvenile, flich-worthy phrases" dropped on my part will not hurt my work is because the decision to "cock-block" my work happened first, rejection came first, sidelining and blackholing came first. Been ongoing for years!
Secondly and more importantly, I do NOT slam others. No, I have valid criticism of the work of certain 9/11 celebrities, work which was used to mislead and pacify not just the 9/11 Truth Movement, but the global public as well. Unfortunately, the valid criticism reflects poorly on the reputation and integrity of the involved 9/11 celebrities, with only one honorable viable outcome (e.g., evolving their 9/11 understanding).
Thirdly, it doesn't matter what I do. I can be respectful, and was respectful for decades, Ms. Serpa, -- a much honed discussion tactic -- and got the same sidelining. My blog documents the years (spanning into decades) of blackholing and sidelining as much as a discussion of my thesis in any half-way legitimate fashion. The years ground on me. The decision was made, and the battle-lines for defending disinfo premises were drawn. But now I can be disrespectful and use it (sparingly) as a tool, if it inspires conversation, which I wasn't getting before. Certainly the reaction to the parody in denying a presentation is hay that will be cut, bailed and hailed as evidence of "valid infiltration to 9/11 Truth." ... Unless they evolve.
Fourthly, given the weight of number two is why you're seeing such eifer in voting down my WTC-4 presentation. OPEN YOUR EYES. It isn't about the parody as much as it is about how much truth the parody reveals and damns reputations... Unless they evolve.
Fifthly, I do hope juvenile phrases like "butt-hurt" do stick in the eyes of committee members reading, and inspires them into action, like starting the conversation about what exactly I wrote that gave them butt-hurt. And in that emotional discussion, I'll be able to sneak in rational doo-doo from neu nookie-doo and achieve lofty goals: my agenda. Move the discussion forward.
You wrote: "You call for others to “adult-up”. I’m calling for you to grow-up. Once you get past puberty, I communicate with you again."
Do not let your waning years get the better of you and succumb to unjoyful trains of thought!
You are being given an opportunity to be the TRUTH WARRIOR that you alway envisioned and leave a lasting legacy. If you can't handle salty language -- much less salty language not even aimed at you but at other 9/11 celebrities --, yeah, well that could become valid fodder to be mocked. I don't want the channeling on my next parody to have to go there... just saying.
In summary, you're going to schedule two recorded sessions of YOU simply READING and sharing (1) Exotika 911 Blackhole #4 and (2) 9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons, which you will then post into the reference section and provide URL's for. Then, I don't have to get on anybody's presentation calendar, and nobody has to have their butt-hurt exposed for voting down again my presentation.
It is about the message, and not the messenger.
// mcb
x648 Maxwell C. Bridges : 9/11 Reading aloud into a Zoom conference
2025-01-08
Dear Mr. Magaletta, Ms. Serpa, and Ms. Laratonda,
An idea came up during an email exchange with Ms. Serpa that I would like to formalize.
Backstory: The Christian Science church does not have human pastors or ministers giving unique sermons on Sundays. Instead, a year or more in advance of a scheduled Sunday service, a committee (of the Mother Church) puts together a lesson plan composed of citations from the Holy Bible and Science & Health based on the subject (of which there are 26) for the week. Whereas the subject repeats twice a year, the citations and lesson plans do not, are unique, and are published to be studied by the faithful during the week and then READ out loud on Sundays by elected readers from each church's congregation (2-3 year terms). The discoverer of Christian Science, fearing that the sermons from "Christian Science Pastors" -- being human -- might not live up to the inspired spiritual wisdom of the HB and S&H across the world from branch-church to branch-church, so ordained the HB and S&H as its pastors.
With this in mind, I would like to take me, as a "human pastor for FGNW on 9/11", out of the loop by HIRING one or two (or three) of you to READ out loud (as if for the visually impaired) two of my 9/11 articles into a recorded Zoom session, post recording to a public 9/11 repository, and make the URL of the recording available to the public.
- Screen share a browser session of the respective article as you read it out loud with your camera on so viewers can see you reading. No fake A.I. bot here.
- Start in a hide-all state and progressively click open sections as the reading comes to them.
- Announce footnotes by number, bore into them, read them, (then collapse them) when encountered in the reading.
- Read the descriptions provided for pictures, and trace with the cursor anomalies being pointed out. (Pictures can be right-click opened in new tabs to make them bigger.)
- Be faithful to the material to keep your opinions to a minimum; you're just a reader, but reading does require practice and some ENERGY.
- Could be one reader or two or three.
Here are the two articles.
- https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
- https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
What do you get out of this arrangement?
- Credit in the 9/11 Truth Movement for proving your open-mindedness by reading the work(s) out loud, whether or not the premise convinces you.
- A cashier's check for $200 for each article (max $400 to one person). If three readers, appropriate compensation for each reader will be made.
- Not that all three of you weren't given good lines and reasonable characterization in my 9/11 Gummiworm parody, your assistance will earn you even better lines and characterization in the up-and-coming sequel tentatively titled "The Nuking of the 9/11 Truth Movement."
Another observation and benefit?
Technically, those who champion (Woodsian) DEW -- upon a rational and objective review of my work -- SHOULD already be disciples of my deviant FGNW premise, because it is in the category of DEW, has energy to spare, addresses the most anomalies including those in Dr. Wood's book, has valid scientific foundation (based on Dr. Andre Gsponer), is next-level Woodsian-DEW and where she couldn't go, and fills voids throughout the whole 9/11 story and its disinformation efforts. Dr. Wood's book connects no dots and has no conclusions; thus her followers were required to keep looking (if they are sincere), but they didn't and don't because they are disinfo agents trying to keep public understanding in inconclusive cul-de-sacs.
[The above paragraph could be repeated with NT instead of DEW and Dr. Jones instead of Dr. Wood.]
As such, my appearance and being a representative of a deviant FGNW premise is like a magnet, if not target, for bad behavior by disinfo agents when I attend zoom conferences.
Therefore, if I take myself out of the equation by having someone else simply READ out loud my premise into a recorded Zoom session, we can help curtail that negative magnetic pull.
Whereas this recorded reading could be at a regular session of Boston 9/11 Truth or the 9/11 War Room, it might be better at a special session with limited or no additional participants excluding me as well.
The reading of my premise(s) by you solves another immediate problem that you have with me: my persistence as I come out of my shell and become, not just more public, but more vocal about the organized 9/11 Truth Movement and its deceit. With the reading session agreed to and in the works, I won't be lobbying Boston 9/11 Truth or the 9/11 War Room for time slots for me to present. I won't be making hay out of the denials and dinging reputations. I won't be putting together a weaker Power Point presentation when the topic requires the depth and organization of the articles already penned and published.
Because somehow the channeled Gummiworm work "hit" more 9/11 celebrities (7+) than expected (2) on the steering committee for Boston 9/11 Truth, I know what you're thinking and want more details from above about "the parody sequel tentatively titled 'The Nuking of the 9/11 Truth Movement'", and are probably also considering making conditions of your involvement tied to that new parody in the works.
Not to worry! The parody takes place in the future, a few months after the declared death of the 9/11 Truth Movement at a round-table "survivor's dealing with death" therapy session. It takes the form of positive spell-casting -- a seed for a possible alternative course of action leading into the 5th dimension -- in what is channeled for its characters to say, and provides a key today for the real life person being characterized to avoid much of the expected figurative latter-day nuclear fall-out from my FGNW premise germinating in the public.
The parody sequel is coming, and it can't be negotiated away as a condition for your participation in reading aloud my premise. Neither can the existing Gummiworm parody be held hostage and un-published as a condition. It is first amendment protected free speech, and hay will be made, bailed, and hailed at any motion to be removed. [It is funny and exposes many truths in its humor.]
You can only accept or decline being a reader.
Although nothing has been written yet, you're already a named character, and tentatively main characters whose very lines, reasonableness, and likableness will reflect (a) your reaction to this proposal and (b) your assistance in getting objective review by larger audiences of the FGNW premises. [Objective review can lead to its validation or debunking, and either would be an acceptable outcome if done legitimately and objectively.]
You all have your own impressions of me from my meager participation in several of your public zoom meetings, from my FB participation, from my Boston 9/11 Truth presentation, from emails, from the articles on my blog (and its re-purposing of attempts at rational discussion.)
Clearly I am in a different class & league and at a much higher level than other "lone-nuts" and "teams of nuts" you met on the internet peddling their 9/11 conspiracies.
That's the bottom-line. I don't have a team. I'm a lone-nut and seed-planter, and religiously passionate about Truth. I don't need or want a team.
What's needed at this juncture, what my agenda is, and what your role ought to be is that of "first follower." [Refer to the short video below.]
"First Follower: Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ
Accepting the paid reading assignment and performing it does NOT have to signify or make you a first-follower (... unless it does). Baby-steps. Accepting and carrying out the assignment is just demonstrating sincere truther objectivity, giving voice and airtime to something that (I claim) is still actively being suppressed [that the vote of the steering committee proves.]
If all three of you decline the reading-aloud assignment, I'll look elsewhere for the readers.
Moving my message forward doesn't require your participation, and is simply an opportunity for YOU to make a difference with 9/11 Truth.
And as a token of my sincerity and good faith in this matter, if you accept one (or both) reading assignments, not only will I send you a check with a 25% down payment [remaining balance to be paid upon public publication of the video on the internet], but also it will be a personal check exposing my batman's Bruce Wayne (unless certified check is requested).
[Honey-Pot Warning: My batman's Bruce Wayne could negatively impact your integrity and reputation if used to dox as an ad hominem meant to discredit the premise.]
In conclusion, the above is the idea that Ms. Serpa inspired that I am acting on. My agenda and play book are revealed.
Do you accept or decline to offer your assistance as an "out loud" reader of my premise(s) into a recorded video?
All the best,
// Maxwell C. Bridges
No comments:
Post a Comment