by Maxwell C. Bridges
2024-11-11
Email to: Roland Angle, CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
CC: Susan Serpa, Chris Begier, Craig McKee, Adam Ruff, Gene Laratonda, Ted Walter, Norman (9/11 Revisionist)
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?
* FAQ #13: 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.
* 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
No comments:
Post a Comment