Maxwell C. Bridges
2025-12-11
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 during 2025.
Expand All Parts / Hide All Parts
Expand All Sections / Hide All Sections
Part 1: AE911Truth Discussions in venues of Craig McKee and Richard Gage
Although these are one-side, they were posted in good faith that they would lead to two-sided discussions.
x2 Maxwell C. Bridges : expect few of the findings of AE911Truth to hold true
2025-04-20
https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/the-quiet-but-essential-legacy-of/comments
2025-04-20
Dear Mr. McKee, Thank you for that nice tribute to Mr. Roland Angle.
You wrote: '[Roland Angle] explained that some 500 engineers were involved in the official investigations into the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, and about two dozen decisions were “deliberately made to derail the investigations’ ability to reach an accurate conclusion.†Among these, he included: “destroying the evidence, refusing to test for incendiaries, refusing to release their analysis and their computer models, and fabricating stories about the fireproofing removal.â€'
My point, as you well know, is that if 500 engineers can deliberately derail the official investigation to reach an accurate conclusion, what did (active) engineers do when they infiltrated AE911Truth? Clearly, it would be most out of character for corrupt members of government who worked diligently to control the message for them to allow any organized 9/11 truth group to be left to their own devices and whims.
A new investigation is called for. Indeed. But expect few of the findings of AE911Truth to hold true.
Want to know why those engineers "refused to test for incendiaries"?
(a) Because incendiaries by themselves lack the brisance to achieve the sudden pulverization observed.
(b) Because mixing incendiaries with chemical-based explosives, like RDX, which they (with the government) also did not test for, and neither did Dr. Jones or AE911Truth with their own dust samples, would have been debunked by other evidence starting with the audio signature and ending with the lengthy duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
(c) The real reason: Because they (government engineers) knew that incendiaries, if used at all, were not the primary mechanisms of destruction. They might have even had it told to them with grave threats that incendiaries weren't used and strong omissive hints something else (like my nuclear hobby-horse) was. Why look for something in the dust that you know isn't there -- unlike Uranium and its decay elements that were there in the dust.
FAQ #13/#15 (depending on URL or PDF) from AE911Truth that tries to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement by framing the discussion around "nuclear blasts" and not even mentioning neutron bombs in its consideration or anything exotic?
This work from ae911truth is just as fraudulent, if not more so, than the government's analysis, because MORE was expected of them. Did they do any work into WTC-4 or WTC-6? Huge gap, but also hugely obvious when an honest and objective engineer studies that something unique was in play within those buildings, that they'd both have clouds of content-rich dust rising from those structures while the wall assemblies were still in the air.
May the new CEO of ae911truth be more objective, honest, and complete in the task, because as long as ae911truth can consistently get it wrong (with the nanothermite limited hang-out), the government doesn't have to worry about its wannabe-gadfly efforts at truth.
//
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : Dear Mr. Richard Gage, It is wonderful that a new 9/11 investigation is encouraged
2025-04-23
https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/breaking-911-wi-sen-ron-johnson-corrupt/comments
2025-04-23
Dear Mr. Richard Gage, It is wonderful that a new 9/11 investigation is encouraged, but don't be surprised when ae911truth's premises (of nanothermite) don't filter out as the primary causes of demolition. The grand omission by both Dr. Steven Jones and ae911truth FAQ#15 is any rational research into neutron bombs, let alone their more modern offspring, sometimes called exotic nukes.
Dr. Andre Gsponer wrote about fourth generation nuclear devices in the decade leading up to 9/11 and published in reputable science journals. [ https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071 ]
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.
The ae911truth FAQ#15 tried to debunk all forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement by framing their nuclear yields as a "nuclear blast" and scaling them very large. The effects listed above? How many of them fit into the category of "nuclear blast"?
How many of the anomalies of 9/11 -- that super-duper nanothermite doesn't even attempt to explain -- could be addressed by some of the individual possible effects listed above?
Even the duration of under-rubble hot-spots can be explained by some of the many FGNW used in tandem that day getting fouled and having some level of nuclear fizzle and coming short of the desired nuclear yield.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
<- hide above -->
Part 2: FGNW Discussions with Reese Erch-Guy
This discussion is worthy of reading, mostly because Mr. Reese Erch-Guy claimed to be one of the nine co-authors of one (or more) of the nanothermite papers promoted by Dr. Steven Jones as lead author.
Our discussion transpired in Facebook, starting under a posting by Ms. Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda. Rather than overwhelm the comments of her posting with our off-topic discussion, I encouraged Mr. Reese Erch-Guy through FB messenger to specify a venue for us to carry on. Through messenger, Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wanted to qualify whether or not my premise or I were even worthy of debate. That is when I created a posting to my FB wall for us to continue.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy bailed on the discussion early owing to "condescension" and "sarcasm", but not ad hominem. Were I to speculate, the real reason was that WTC evidence was presented (in the FEMA/NIST video) that he, with nanothermite, could not explain. Further, I defended with examples my contention about how Dr. Steven Jones's and AE911Truth's work were "blatant disinformation".
x6 Maxwell C. Bridges : blatant disinfo for no-planes, Woodsian-DEW, and nanothermite...
2025-10-21
https://www.facebook.com/sandra.jelmi/posts/pfbid02Pm2knGY5neNWkXsq6eEyAP2vGD5H9kcL1LVocw2aHQNrWKJUCv1ECK8GqhayneZLl?comment_id=1356424509180899
Ain't nobody still on the fence. Those you think are on the fence are really way out in the fields of the back 40 and want to know nothing of a fence that could possibly be sat on and a decision made. And even when their gaze can't escape the sight of a fence being there, and even if the grass on the other side (conspiracy theories) is greener, they don't see this as anything that can remove the fence or hold its culprits to account.
It's running close to quarter of a century, and I still see the blatant disinfo for no-planes, Woodsian-DEW, and nanothermite... These are the secondary narratives that are part of the same psyops.
My premise (exotic fourth generation nuclear devices) is the only one that addresses all of the evidence, greater portion of the anomalies, all of the energy requirements, all of the logistics (WTC-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) on short-notice with something real-world with energy to spare.
So, yeah. Ain't nobody on the fence.
//
x8 Reese Erch-Guy : a flat forehead from beating my head against the wall
2025-10-21
Maxwell C. Bridges I have a flat forehead from beating my head against the wall. After 20+ years of experience I no longer put significant effort into convincing anybody unless they are in a position to do something about the problem. The average person is in no way interested in devoting time to something outside family and friends relating to a 24-year-old state crime against democracy (SCAD). But suppose I'm talking to some legal professional who has some theoretical power to do something about the problem. I would then qualify my introductory statement by asking, "If I could convince you that 9/11 was an inside job, what -- if anything -- would you do in response to that new belief?" We can save ourselves a lot of time based on the response -- verbal and nonverbal -- that we get to that question.
If we take the mission seriously we have to be efficient. Every minute we spend talking to a committed red-pilled person is a minute we could spend talking to someone who might actually take the blue pill. Or talking to a group, as I'm doing now.
x10 Reese Erch-Guy : Are you up for a proper debate?
2025-10-21
Maxwell C. Bridges I hope that most people will respond to my previous reply to you without getting distracted by this reply. "blatant disinfo for no-planes, Woodsian-DEW, and nanothermite..."
In what world is nanothermite on the same level as your first two examples of "blatant disinfo"? Are you up for a proper debate, meaning no ad hominems, no distractions, fair responses to every question? If not, fine, just please don't bait-and-switch on me.
Fair warning, I am one of the co-authors of the nanothermite paper.
x12 Maxwell C. Bridges : Just the type of rational discussion for which I have searching for decades.
2025-10-21
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, You are a co-author of the NT paper? And you would like "a proper debate, meaning no ad hominems, no distractions, fair responses to every question"? Just the type of rational discussion for which I have searching for decades.
Fair warning, my blog collects my efforts in various forums over the years to have precisely this nanothermite (versus FGNW) discussion. Heaven's to Betsy, NO, DO NOT READ MY VANITY BLOG FROM A-TO-Z!!! It is boring and repetitive even for me.
Something that you'll discover if you go exploring my blog is that many influential people in the 9/11 Truth Movement will ~not~ have such a discussion with me, and their avoidance of the issues that I bring up speaks volumes about their integrity. My blog shows sincerity and discipline, a strong adherence to Truth, and articulate and reasoned positions substantiated with evidence and proper analysis. That's why the likes of Richard Gage, David Chandler, Gene Laratonda, Adam Ruff, Craig McKee, Lawrence Fine, Andrew Johnson, Woodsian-DEWers, Deep-Underground-Nukers,... ACTIVELY avoid the very discussion that you propose. [My blog has those receipts, too.] It got so ridiculous that I even had to channel a parody: "Gummiworms of 9/11 Destroyed the WTC".
More importantly for you, you'll find each and every point that I'll probably throw at nanothermite that needs to be accounted for. [Duration of under-rubble hot-spots, inadequate brisance, slow ignition time, inability to account for pulverization of concrete while leaving inner-core standing (the spire), the muted audio signature, the logistics hassle under the noses of bomb-sniffing dogs, WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, ... evidence of fission, evidence of fusion, evidence of very hot heat sources.]
Something very important for you to understand. The contention point isn't whether or not nanothermite was involved; we're not arguing mutual exclusivity of any one mechanism of destruction. Geez, we can quite literally say that they threw everything they had at this psyops ruse including the proverbial kitchen sink (owing to the restaurants on the top floor and each floors' little kitchen nook for coffee.) But if we were to start splitting hairs over the PRIMARY mechanism of destruction, NT comes up way short, and AE9/11 Truth knew/knows this.
Worse, the evidence for nuclear involvement spills out all over [as you'll see from my papers], and this is something the ur-champions of NT downplayed, and even spun up blatant disinformation to dissuade even the notion thereof. [Dr. Steven Jones and AE9/11Truth: their anti-nuke work is grossly flawed, and their NT work doesn't go the distance.]
My latest position papers on the WTC-4 and WTC-1/2.
- https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
- https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
There's many reasons why I'm having you read my WTC-4 analysis first, aside from it being my most recent efforts. We need to get you out of the box of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, which can be circled back to. But when you see what AE9/11Truth ignored with WTC-4, when you contemplate how it was destroyed before falling wall assemblies from WTC-2 fell on it, you'll be asking "What caused this?" And your answer won't be NT.
The second article is a more conventional analysis of WTC-1/2 and how multiple FGNW destroyed it.
+++
Logistics: This obviously isn't the place to have this wonderful discussion. Create a topic of FB someplace and invite me to participate.
Or you could request that I do the same, but that gives me homecourt advantage. [My blog is also an option, but it doesn't do lengthy comments well and isn't quite as visible as FB.]
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, I am looking forward to our exchange.
//
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, This is me following up to your request under Sandra's 9/11 posting to have a rational, civil discussion about nanotthermite (and FGWN).
Where would you like to have this discussion? Create a posting on FB and invite me to participate. Or I could do the same, if you wish.
//
x14 Reese Erch-Guy : what is "FGWN"
2025-10-22 [messenger]
Thank you for the follow-up!
Just FYI, there was an Accept button under your private message, but clicking it had no effect until I Accepted you as a Friend. Kind of strange.
First, what is "FGWN"?
x16 Maxwell C. Bridges : "FGWN" is a typo.
2025-10-22 [messenger]
Maxwell C. Bridges
"FGWN" is a typo. Should have been "FGNW": fourth generation nuclear weapons that I also tag the "exotic" adjective to sometimes.
FYI, I didn't come up with FGNW; Dr. Andre Gsponer did. You can google him and his many papers on nuclear topics in 3-4 languages, but my blog articles contain links to his peer-reviewed work that is of relevance here.
("Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071 )
To my knowledge, he hasn't written a single thing about 9/11. I'm the lone nut making that connection.
The name dropping of various 9/11 celebrities I gave before? I get shut down real fast (e.g., ghosting, deletion of comment, deletion of posting) when I bring up Dr. Andre Gsponer's name and (try to) have them look at the linked article above.
Why? It was written in 2005, in addition to a book and other articles on this subject from the mid to late 1990's. Dr. Steven Jones did his "repudiation of nukes" in 2007. Nuclear physicist that he is, he did a shitty job of researching nukes (to have missed Dr. Andre Gsponer's work!), as did Dr. Judy Wood, almost as if they were conspirators purposely poorly arguing two limited hang-out, secondary narratives.
Spoiler: Dr. Jones framed the nuclear weapons as really large, and said the signatures of nuclear weapons at the WTC was really small, therefore no nuclear weapons involved. Period. End of Story.
He didn't mention neutron bombs. Nor did he mention any of the bastard offspring of those neutron bombs today: exotic FGNW.
//
To the question of where our discussion should transpire, you're welcome to host on your FB profile, or in a relevant FB group. Further, I'm fine with you making a posting that links to your NT work. That could be the starting point for the discussion.
Similarly, I could host, but under a FB posting of the WTC-4 article that I wrote.
//
x18 Reese Erch-Guy : a forthcoming generation of war-fighting nuclear weapons
2025-10-22 [messenger]
Reese
I appreciate your respectful responses.
I took a quick look at the paper you cited above and I noted this description of FGNW at the very beginning: "a forthcoming generation of war-fighting nuclear weapons which has been under serious consideration for more than fifty years, and which may become a reality within a decade or two".
Reese
To see whether it's really worth investing the effort into a full-fledged public debate, I'm wondering if you can briefly state (1) why you think the evidence favors FGNW over nanothermite, and (2) how it would help get justice or any other high-level benefit, if the "truth movement" were to accept your conclusions about FGNW. I mean, given how little progress toward justice has been made so far with ALL the various competing theories, why should we support just this one after 24 years?
I admit that part of this question is irrelevant to which theory we hold about 9/11. The ruling class still rules. The ruling class has continued to execute false flags. I predicted that that would happen if we didn't get anything serious done about 9/11. And so we have been "treated" to Orlando, Thousand Oaks, San Bernardino, the Boston Marathon bombing, Las Vegas, etc. etc.
All of this, despite the fact that roughly 50% of Americans polled maybe a decade ago admitted to believing that the government has been less than truthful about 9/11. Of course it's an open question as to what percentage of that 50% believes some enhanced version of the official story, such as "there are many more Muslims working to harm us than the government has admitted". There is some evidence of that, in view of how various American communities have been taken over by Muslims who are advocating sharia law, or have even perhaps managed to impose that to some extent or another.
Reese
Can you be more specific about the errors that you believe Steven Jones made in his analysis of nuclear theories?
x20 Maxwell C. Bridges : We're not having this discussion in messenger!
2025-10-23 [messenger
Dude. We're not having this discussion in messenger! Get with the program. Let's first agree on where this discussion should transpire, and I'm doing all in my power to let you have home court advantage. If you want, you could even copy your last couple of messages here into a posting on your wall (or FB group), and we'll go to town. //
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02okNHiFrqDWedgwdRhPieHEjaw8hmQePbqAktfwSYVSVitj63Ju1FJ6fToFRNEAUbl
x22 Maxwell C. Bridges : In what world is nanothermite "blatant disinfo"?
2025-10-24
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0k2ZNsoZ3zkTw2xa8WpVezG7M4ngGTNme5KMoewXyxajnBHcubbGtto5zFi21fMPhl?comment_id=633858109680523
I made a comment under a posting by Ms. Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda: "I still see the blatant disinfo for no-planes, Woodsian-DEW, and nanothermite... These are the secondary narratives that are part of the same psyops."
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy replied:
"In what world is nanothermite on the same level as your first two examples of "blatant disinfo"? Are you up for a proper debate, meaning no ad hominems, no distractions, fair responses to every question? If not, fine, just please don't bait-and-switch on me. Fair warning, I am one of the co-authors of the nanothermite paper."
I have been looking for a rational discussion on this topic (nanothermite versus FGNW) for years.
I replied, but that comment got removed. I contacted him through messenger with (a copy of) my reply. We needed to have a place in Facebook for the debate. To give him home-court advantage, I was urging him to create the FB posting under which our discussion would happen. He didn't, and I wasn't about to continue discussing in Messenger, so I created this.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote in messenger: "I took a quick look at the paper you cited..."
Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed work "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy continued: "... and I noted this description of FGNW at the very beginning: 'a forthcoming generation of war-fighting nuclear weapons which has been under serious consideration for more than fifty years, and which may become a reality within a decade or two'."
Right Mr. Mr. Reese Erch-Guy is for pointing this out, this future-tense language. And with such a "quick look", one might be tempted into saying this doesn't apply to the discussion anymore, because these FGNW weapons are a decade or two away from 2005 when it was published. FGNW lose by a technicality.
But here is why FGNW doesn't lose the 9/11 destruction debate, and why it remains in play.
First of all, the fourth generation nuclear devices described by Dr. Andre Gsponer are "pure fusion." Pure fusion is very hard to create on its own. Getting to pure fusion is indeed a decade or two away.
Secondly Mr. Reese Erch-Guy rightly catches me in my laziness for which I deserve to be chided. The proper description of the 9/11 nuclear devices that I champion is: "late third or pre-mature fourth generation nuclear weapons". My bastard exotic nuke offspring of the 1970's neutron bomb are hybrid fission and fusion (third generation), while Dr. Gsponer was speculating into the dreamy pure fusion devices (fourth generation). Instead of spelling that out or coming up with a bad-ass acronym for it, I made the decision to "round-up" to simply "fourth generation nuclear weapons" (FGNW).
[Ends up being an objectivity test for debate opponents (a) to prove they went to my reference information and (b) to find a weakness.]
Third and most important of all, if we set aside "how fusion was achieved", the nuclear yield of Dr. Gsponer's FGNW is the same as the late-third generation exotic nukes that I'm talking about. That's what makes it relevant.
Fourth, let us not forget that since the 1970's at least, if not before, detailed information about nuclear anything was no longer public. The USA never talks about means and methods. Sure, some nuke papers would still get published and available to the general public, but they lack the operational details that would enable those with evil intentions. Such papers are generalizations, overviews, and/or future-looking and have no problems with the government censors. Dr. Andre Gsponer's work fits into this category. Peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal. It went through several published revisions, indicating feedback that allowed it to be improved. Plus, Dr. Gsponer had several other publications (even a book) leading up to this one from 2005.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "To see whether it's really worth investing the effort into a full-fledged public debate, I'm wondering if you can briefly state..."
Oh, it is worth the full-fledged public debate -- nanothermite versus properly defined nukes -- because it has never happened, despite my best, most sincere, most respectful efforts.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "(1) why you think the evidence favors FGNW over nanothermite."
- Fingerprints of fission in two different dust reports, one by USGS.
- Fingerprints of fusion in the flawed and scope-limited tritium report.
- The massive energy sink represented by dustifying concrete floors.
- The radiation leaching off of the debris pile and select pieces at the reclamation site; caught on video tape of high quality NIST and FEMA equipment.
- The banning of phones, cameras, and Geiger counters from Ground Zero.
- That they named it "Ground Zero."
- The prevention of normal investigations by qualified personnel.
- The duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- The continual generation of metalic particles in the air measured months later.
- The clean-up efforts that resembled radiation mitigation techniques.
- The audio signature (muted). Even exotic chemical based weapons (say, mixed with NT) use a blast wave as part of its destructive output, and this represents a deafening audio signature.
- WTC-4 was going up in smoke while WTC-2's "smashing" wall assemblies were still in the air. Ditto for WTC-6's crater with respect to WTC-1.
- Nanothermite is an incidiary, not an explosive.
- NT takes effort to ignite, lessons from Jon Cole.
- To get the observed brisance of the WTC tower destruction, Dr. Jones said "NT was mixed with something else like RDX."
- Dr. Jones said: "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." NT could only be lamely associated with 6 spikes in off-gassing of the debris pile.
- Logistics of FGNW: assuming the size of fire extinguishers, mounting brackets and wiring could be installed right under the noses of bomb-sniffing dogs. Later over the weekend, the actual devices could be affixed to the mounting brackets. I guess four FGNW per detonation level aimed upwards and mounted on outside walls of the inner core (because of the spire artifact), and 6-10 detonation levels for each tower. WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, WTC-7 could have had 6-12 all positioned at ground level and aimed upwards.
- Logistics of NT: If NT is installed on every floor, that's pretty labor intensive. If every other n-th floor, then more blast wave is required that then increases the audio signature above what was recorded. Just on the two towers, this dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
- Champions of NT don't even attempt to explain WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.
- WTC-7: FGNW suggests maybe its original devices got fouled. By 5 pm, either they got the original FGNW back on line, or they simply installed 8 new ones. They could have been installed at the ground level near that critical pillar 47, aimed upwards and away from the sides. NT (or conventional explosive) champions don't really explain how they could have wired WTC-7, because it was a secure facility, and quickly wiring it on the day of while fires were in the building ain't Occam Razor. Setting up a dozen tri-pods for the FGNW on or near the ground floor does seem possible.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "(2) how it would help get justice or any other high-level benefit, if the "truth movement" were to accept your conclusions about FGNW. I mean, given how little progress toward justice has been made so far with ALL the various competing theories, why should we support just this one after 24 years?"
Not every nation in the world has access to the exotic FGNW. If all of the other 9/11 anomalies didn't already narrow down the suspect list, exotic nukes would: the USA and Israel. Both had means, motive, and opportunity. For sure, this is a data point that fits in the trend line with Israel from its inception, to the JFK assassination, to the USS Liberty, to Epstein (to control politicians like Frump) ... to the genocide today. Israel benefited the most from 9/11, by having the USA fight its wars.
The figurative nuclear fallout of this revelation would "nuclear energize" not only the 9/11 Truth Movement, but all truth movements that oppose domestic terrorists tyrants (project Frump 47) and the genocide committed by Israel. Maybe we'd finally be able to drain the swamp [because they knew the 9/11 nuclear truth and went with the cover-up.] Maybe we'd be able to get some legislation to label AIPAC, ADL, and others as foreign lobbyists (and then to get rid of Citizen United and money in politics.)
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "Can you be more specific about the errors that you believe Steven Jones made in his analysis of nuclear theories?"
- Dr. Jones framed the devices as only large nukes, which obviously would have nuclear yields in excess of what was observed, meaning "half of Manhattan would have been leveled; radioactive particles from the fission stage radiation would have been blasted everywhere."
- Dr. Jones omitted mentioning neutron devices. Dr. Jones omitted mentioning details on exotic nuclear devices. Maybe because physics professor Dr. Steven Jones had a NDA preventing him from talking more modern nuclear toys.
- Dr. Jones had reason to distrust various government reports, but he accepted them at face value. Like the scope-limited tritium report with shoddy sampling that only considered tritium sources from items that might have been in the buildings (e.g., airplane exit signs, weapons sights on guns, and time pieces). This report re-defined what "trace-level" was, yet still the measurement levels were higher -- but not high enough to indicate a health risk.
- The two independent reports on the dust that showed Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities (fingerprints of fission), Dr. Jones said were too small for the large nukes that he focused on. He never discussed tactical nukes and using them in tandem.
- Dr. Jones's conclusion was that the dust/tritium reports didn't match what would be expected from his framing of only large nukes, therefore (logic error) no nuclear devices at all were involved.
Here's a couple of reference links to my work that takes Dr. Gsponer, Dr. Wood, Woodsian-DEWers, Nukers, to the next level in understanding 9/11.
- https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
- https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
There's many reasons why I'm having you read my WTC-4 analysis first, aside from it being my most recent efforts. We need to get you out of the box of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, which can be circled back to. But when you see what AE9/11Truth ignored with WTC-4, when you contemplate how it was destroyed before falling wall assemblies from WTC-2 fell on it, you'll be asking "What caused this?" And your answer won't be NT.
//
x24 Reese Erch-Guy : claims without providing clear references
2025-10-24
Thank you laying all that out.
I have to focus on work until tomorrow, but let me respond briefly with this:
1. Even if I grant every point to you, that doesn't get us to "disinfo," much less "blatant disinfo." Most of the evidence that you claim exists is quite obscure. Who exactly do you think DELIBERATELY created and/or supported the nanothermite theory with the INTENT of sidelining a proper investigation?
2. You make many claims without providing clear references. Please cite specific sources for your claims, such as the claims that "WTC-4 was going up in smoke while WTC-2's "smashing" wall assemblies were still in the air" and "Ditto for WTC-6's crater with respect to WTC-1." (Some of your claims need no support, such as "That they named it "Ground Zero," but that claim doesn't support your conclusions.)
3. You agreed to have a civil discussion, but when I asked you a few questions privately to help decide whether this debate would be worth my time and effort, you told me to "get with the program." I am not your underling, and even if I were, that would be rude. Please refrain from any further digs or condescension. This will be the only warning I give.
x26 Maxwell C. Bridges : "blatant disinfo" doesn't even attempt to address all of the anomalies
2025-10-24
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "1. Even if I grant every point to you, that doesn't get us to "disinfo," much less "blatant disinfo." Most of the evidence that you claim exists is quite obscure."
You might not see it yet, but you will.
[a] I consider Dr. Steven Jones's "repudiation of nukes" (2007) blatant disinformation, because even a half-assed literature review and search for exotic weapons (fourth generation nuclear weapons) would have brought up Dr. Andre Gsponer (2005, 1999). When Dr. Jones discussed nuclear devices, he didn't even mention neutron bombs (the grandfather to my exotic FGNW), let alone anything tactical and smaller. HUGE OMISSION.
[b] I consider AE9/11Truth's FAQ's on nuclear devices blatant disinformation, because it does the clever trick of framing it as "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." I'm forced to agree. Why? Because a blast wave was not one of the designed outputs of the FGNW. Highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion was the primary nuclear yield (80%) of an already tactical level device. The effects of highly energetic neutrons passing through content are vastly different than a destructive blast wave.
[c] I consider nanothermite blatant disinformation, because it doesn't even attempt to address all of the anomalies, or all of the buildings in the WTC. It ignores the fingerprints of both fission and fusion, the energy requirements, the logistics. Even the math on quantities required for (1) pulverization and (2) duration of hot-spots does not add up to the observed evidence without it representing massively obscene quantities that ain't Occam Razar for logistics.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "Who exactly do you think DELIBERATELY created and/or supported the nanothermite theory with the INTENT of sidelining a proper investigation?"
The INTENT probably came from many upper-levels in the psyops operation, whereby Dr. Steven Jones was the pawn doing the government's "hatchet-man" activities (against 9/11 nukes), like he had done in the 1990's with Pons and Fleischman "cold fusion".
You'll note that when Dr. Jones "repudiated nukes" (2007), he created a vacuum that needed to be filled. Nanothermite was quite literally just handed to him (dust samples collected from the inside of an apartment near the WTC by the owner, we're told). As mentioned in my posting, there are all sorts of anomalies that NT cannot address easily, from the brisance of the pulverization to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, to the fingerprints of fission and fusin, to WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7.
Dr. Jones tried to park the truth movement's understanding at a lame NT premise that doesn't go the distance required.
Taking this further, David Chandler and Richard Gage -- AE9/11Truth -- have kept understanding parked at NT, when they knew better. I, and probably others, would send messages that they should keep their eyes and minds open to explanations that could address all of the anomalies. Wayne Coste and others as well.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "2. You make many claims without providing clear references. Please cite specific sources for your claims, such as the claims that "WTC-4 was going up in smoke while WTC-2's "smashing" wall assemblies were still in the air" and "Ditto for WTC-6's crater with respect to WTC-1." (Some of your claims need no support, such as "That they named it "Ground Zero," but that claim doesn't support your conclusions.)
I do make many claims, AND I do cite references. You just haven't taken the time to review my work (on WTC-4) whereby the URL's were provided, and from within those works, more reference URL's are provided.
SPOILER ALERT: My WTC-4 work relies on this compilation video of WTC-2. I go through this video a couple times and created screenshots with time references into the video to point out the exact anomalies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfphCLtUUI
You'll be taking back your #2, because I can't be blamed for things you didn't see from not reviewing my work.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "3. You agreed to have a civil discussion, but when I asked you a few questions privately to help decide whether this debate would be worth my time and effort, you told me to "get with the program." I am not your underling, and even if I were, that would be rude. Please refrain from any further digs or condescension. This will be the only warning I give."
Sounds to me like Mr. Reese Erch-Guy -- maybe after seeing the depth of my sincerity and works from my blog -- is looking for any excuse at all, even something as lame as "condescension," to get out of the rational and reasoned debate that he desired.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy's hesitation to create "a debate space" -- like a posting in FB -- even after it was repeatedly called for; this is a stalling, weasel-tactic I've seen in the past (like with Wayne Coste).
To continue to seemingly carry-on the discussion with weighty questions for which he wanted brief answers in a forum not conducive to such (Messenger) was both evasive and rude.
When I wrote "get with the program", it was directed at the rational "NT (versus FGNW)" discussion that Mr. Reese Erch-Guy asked to have. As with any computer program, this requires first setting up the discussion environment, which was a task he was avoiding.
Sounds like condescension is Mr. Reese Erch-Guy's kryptonite.
To set expectations, Mr. Reese Erch-Guy is presently at work and probably needs the weekend to work through my two+ articles and compose his acknowledgement of its superiority as a theory and/or a detailed rebuttal. To relieve the pressure from him, I won't be looking for the fruits of his analysis until Monday, unless he asks for more time. If he happens to post something sooner and if I happen to be online sooner with the time to respond, I will. Point is, this won't and shouldn't be a shoot-from-the-hips, instant back-and-forth, twitter-length debate.
The program to be gotten with is, the discussion is better when both participants take the time to read the other's position, to contemplate, to research, and to compose (& save) off-line, before then pasting the final version of that response into one or more FB comments. (Sometimes it doesn't all fit into one.)
Aside from the condescending hint to compose off-line, I also suggest following my example. Namely, I make a copy of my discussion opponent's last comment, and then use this -- accurate quotations -- to form the structure and basis for my response. In other words, there is no excuse for not quoting the other person exactly and addressing items one-by-one if required.
Last bit of condescension, if one is trying to have this discussion from a smartphone (not saying this is the case), they'll lose in the perception of ladder-day lurker readers. A smartphone user can't keep up with the research and off-line writing required for this deep and meaningful and necessary discussion that I, at least, conduct from a computer with a full keyboard and 10-fingers for typing.
//
x28 Reese Erch-Guy : your second, and last, strike with me
2025-10-24
Maxwell C. Bridges You obviously have a lot more free time on your hands than I do. Too bad you haven't done more with it.
That's right, I'm descending to your level.
You wrote: "Sounds to me like Mr. Reese Erch-Guy -- maybe after seeing the depth of my sincerity and works from my blog -- is looking for any excuse at all, even something as lame as "condescension," to get out of the rational and reasoned debate that he desired."
That right there is your second, and last, strike with me. You are obviously capable of writing several paragraphs without putting someone down. And you HAVE impressed me with your intelligence and your research. .Nonetheless, even at this early stage of our quasi-professional relationship, the urge to engage in emotional manipulation takes precedence over the reasoned debate that you say you want. You have already twice given in to resist the urge to try to gain emotional advantage over me.
You obviously believe that you hold correct beliefs that some people are not smart enough to arrive at, while others are too evil to admit to them, although they secretly know the truth of how right you are. .
I will end with a sliver of possible agreement between us that might serve others in the future: Facebook is a terrible debate forum. Facebook routinely hides people's responses, especially if they contain "double plus bad" [1984 jargon] links. Moreover, clicking a notification item often fails to take me to the supposed item, even after I've spent time unpacking collapsed comments. I can see the end of my life from here. I don't have time for any of this crap. Old-school discussion forum software was way better ... as was the almost universally recognized necessity to have one or more moderators actively available and committed to culling nonsensical or caustic remarks, and blocking repeat offenders. .
If others care to continue any part of this debate, I would encourage them to first ask themselves, if nanothermite is really the "red herring" that Bridges thinks we've been chasing, why hasn't it gotten more attention from official investigative bodies? Wouldn't those bodies be grudgingly willing to follow up on the leads that we've provided them, and then tell us some credible reason why it was leads have not panned out? I'm not counting NIST's ridiculous response regarding WTC 7 to the effect that explosive blasts would have been loud and no one heard any such blasts. Plenty of people onsite heard such blasts from all three of the tallest buildings involved in this debate. Blasts on every other floor, after the first half-second or so of the wave of destruction, would have come so close together, the resulting sound would have been a general roar ... which is exactly what we hear all the videos' audio tracks. The firefighters who reported a "pop-pop-pop" sound must've been referring to the beginning(s) of the destruction. There's also the molten metal running down the channel rails etc. Were there micro-third-and-a-half-generation nukes that did not exert much blast force but instead only caused structural steel to melt and run "like lava from a volcano"? .The refutations of the mini-nuke argument practically write themselves.
x30 Maxwell C. Bridges : you aren't the one deleting my comments
2025-10-24
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, Most interesting. I responded to your top-level posting. You are nice enough to quote from my comment in your response, but then delete my comment?
Or did some other entity delete it, like an AI bot, because I had mentioned I-srael. I noticed my comment under Ms. Jelmi-Laratonda's thread get deleted [I replaced it.] Could have been her who originally deleted it, but I doubt it. I think they've tweaked the AI censorship bots.
Ergo, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't the one deleting my comments and playing games.
I'm confident you made a copy of my MIA comment (in order for you to quote me), and that was my advice in the comment itself, as well.
Indeed I may have more time than you, or maybe I am more passionate about my 9/11 hobby-horse area. Don't let that distract you or dissuade you. I'm a patient fellow. There are other gems from my top-level posting and that missing comment that are worthy of (a) being quoted and (b) receiving your educated commentary.
Here's one thing from the MIA comment that I'll bring back to life.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "2. You make many claims without providing clear references. Please cite specific sources for your claims, such as the claims that "WTC-4 was going up in smoke while WTC-2's "smashing" wall assemblies were still in the air" and "Ditto for WTC-6's crater with respect to WTC-1." (Some of your claims need no support, such as "That they named it "Ground Zero," but that claim doesn't support your conclusions.)
I do make many claims, AND I do cite references. You just haven't taken the time to review my work (on WTC-4) whereby the URL's were provided, and from within those works, more reference URL's are provided.
SPOILER ALERT: My WTC-4 work relies on this compilation video of WTC-2. I go through this video a couple times and created screenshots with time references into the video to point out the exact anomalies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfphCLtUUI
Here is my WTC-4 work: https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
You need to keep clicking and boring into its many collapsed sections. Done that way for ease of navigation. I just learned a new trick: if you click on an image, it allows you to see a larger version of it with a navigation bar at the bottom to click through the other images on the page.
Take your time digesting my WTC-4 analysis.
P.S. I am sincere and I take this discussion seriously. You need to as well, regardless of condescension dripping down from my uplifted nose while sitting on my high horse. Consider this a test of our integrity.
Before shoot-from-the-hip responding and while gathering your thoughts on how you want to approach the many issues I've already briefly listed (as requested), you ought to explore my blog. In "FGNW Discussion Volume 1" in its "Chapter 11: FGNW Discussion with Wayne Coste", he too wanted to discuss things with me, put on airs, and had similar issues in making a homecourt posting. He comes up in other FGNW discussion volumes as well. He played games, and it showed.
Consider this Lincoln-Douglas debate of our time: NT versus FGNW on 9/11.
//
x32 Reese Erch-Guy : I have deleted nothing
2025-10-14
Maxwell C. Bridges I have deleted nothing in relation to our conversations, and I can't imagine doing so unless you were to doxx me. Even then, I don't know how I would have the power to delete something that you or someone else posted. I would only be able to delete my own comments by unfriending you.
Nonetheless, I don't think Facebook is a good place for a detailed technical discussion/debate. As I mentioned before, it's too difficult to access posts or comments referenced in the Notifications tool. One has to repeatedly traverse through the discussion and click, click, click.
Old-school bulletin board software is significantly better. That software makes it easy to quote from what you are replying to, etc.
On top of all that, it would be easy for Facebook to simply delete all our work, if it decided we were making any headway. There's gotta be a better place to store this work where neither of us and no evil third party would be able to delete it. That would exclude your website, my business website, and pretty much all Big Tech social media. Do you have any suggestions for anything better?
Thank you for providing a link to your WTC-4 work. I did not see any such link the first time. You obviously put a lot of work into your material, so I was expecting to see references right after each claim, as is the usual way of providing references.
Evidently it was at the end, or at some other place where I simply didn't see it.
I'm going through it now.
Reese Erch-Guy
FWIW, here's ChatGPT's take on one part of your evidence:
"USGS analyzed various samples of dust from the destruction of the World Trade Center. Concentrations of barium and strontium were found at approximately one part per thousand. Someone has argued that such high concentrations are indicative of exotic versions of nuclear reactions that were responsible for the destruction of all the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. See https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/. What else could have led to such concentrations of those elements in the WTC dust collected from diverse locations?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 30s
Short answer: plenty of ordinary, non-nuclear things in early-2000s office towers can explain Ba/Sr at ~10^3 ppm in the WTC dust.
Here are the biggest, well-documented sources:
#1: Paints & coatings (barite blanc fixe fillers). Precipitated barium sulfate (BaSO4, blanc fixe ) is a standard white, inert filler in architectural/industrial paints, coatings, plastics, paper, and adhesives so when paint turns to dust, Ba comes with it.
Solvay
+2
CAMEO
+2
USGS itself notes that many trace metals in the WTC dust likely came from pigments in paints and other building materials.
USGS Publications Warehouse
#2: Anti-corrosion primers (strontium chromate). Strontium chromate has long been a go-to corrosion-inhibiting pigment in metal primers (including structural and aerospace uses). Steel coated with such primers contributes Sr (and Cr) to dust when pulverized/abraded.
corrosionpedia.com
+2
AeroMag
+2
#3: CRT monitors & other display glass. Early-2000s offices were full of CRTs; CRT glass commonly contains barium and strontium (and lead) to control X-rays and tune properties. Pulverized electronics ? Sr and Ba in dust.
RROIJ
+1
#4: Fluorescent lighting phosphors & glass. Triphosphor blends and certain blue-emitting phosphors include strontium/barium aluminates or chlorapatites; breaking millions of linear and compact fluorescent lamps during collapse releases that material.
Google Patents
#5: Cement, concrete, and wallboard. Portland cement and gypsum systems naturally carry trace Sr and Ba (and can precipitate barite/celestine); these can register at hundreds thousands of ppm in bulk matrices and leach testing. The WTC dust was largely gypsum, concrete, glass fibers, and paper, so trace Sr/Ba from these phases is expected.
ResearchGate
+3
USGS Publications Warehouse
+3
USGS Publications Warehouse
+3
What the USGS actually measured (context that often gets missed):
USGS analyzed dozens of dust samples and a couple of girder-coating samples. Most trace metals (including Ba and Sr) were in the hundreds of ppm, with one outlier dust sample showing elevated barium (3,670 ppm) and strontium (3,130 ppm) i.e., ~0.3%. USGS emphasized the dust was heterogeneous and that trace elements likely reflect paints, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, wiring/equipment, etc.
USGS Publications Warehouse
In their narrative summary, USGS specifically cautioned that these totals reflect ordinary building components (not unusual processes), and that such totals don t even indicate bioavailability.
USGS Publications Warehouse
Bottom line: Ba/Sr at ~10^3 ppm in this context doesn t point to exotic nuclear reactions. It s consistent with a mix of commonplace materials pulverized at massive scale paint fillers (barite), corrosion-inhibiting primers (strontium chromate), CRTs and lighting hardware, and trace constituents of cement/gypsum exactly the kinds of sources USGS flagged in the report you cited.
USGS Publications Warehouse"
x34 Maxwell C. Bridges : Now that comment is gone
2025-10-25
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, Most interesting again. I responded again to comment and mentioned the deletion of earlier comments. You saw that comment, because you mentioned my complaint about a comment getting deleted. Now that comment is gone.
My super-powers of being naive and trusting are still in play and allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have not been deleting my comments, as you claim.
I suspect it might be a particular country that I named.
FTR, I'm not sure unfriending deletes all your comments in various discussions, but I could be wrong. What I know for sure is that if one of your comments is at the top and anchors a bunch of reply comments from anybody, if you delete your anchor comment, the whole discussion tree gets deleted.
The first test is this reply comment to your anchor, to see how long it survives. I don't mention any country's name.
To further the discussion, I plan on posting a series of top-level comments, with the intention that if you can reply as needed to my comments, each starting a new thread. Some passages in my comments might be repetitive from what you've already read (but got bot-deleted), just so the record is complete.
I have not reviewed in detailed your comments (copy-and-pasted from somewhere). My top-level comments will use your comments as the structure and quotations for my reply, so that we won't have to return to that earlier comment thread (that deletes my replies.)
If you'd like to have this discussion elsewhere, specify where, please. I do have a substack and could re-purpose our discussion there, if you'd like.
//
x36 Maxwell C. Bridges : Issues is FB "Most Relevant Comments"
2025-10-25
Just following up. My activity log shows the comments. I think the issue is that FB likes to show "Most Relevant comments," which then has been hiding my own comments from me. When I display "All comments", I seem to be seeing all of the comments that went missing. So it was a FB AI thingy, but not the thingy I expected. Glad I didn't blame my discussion opponent for the action. //
x38 Reese Erch-Guy : Facebook is not a good environment in which to engage in a thorough or uncensored discussion
2025-10-25
Reese Erch-Guy
Maxwell C. Bridges Even when I click All Comments, I often don't see the same number of comments that Facebook said existed. That's an example of what I said from the beginning, that Facebook is not a good environment in which to engage in a thorough or uncensored discussion. Unfortunately I don't know of a better one. Serious public debate seems to be a lost art. I appreciate the effort you have made at engaging in it here.
Reese Erch-Guy
Maxwell C. Bridges This video clearly proves that some form of thermite reaction was involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Molten aluminum does not glow in bright daylight. The droplets are yellow-hot, not even just orange, when they first leave the source.
The video also proves that the thermite reaction was not just used with regard to blast pressure, but also with regard to softening or melting of the structural steel. Whatever exactly is "going off" in this video, I cannot imagine an explanation consistent with a nuclear reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg&list=PL8ssO4mFmnLMeYmdE7kK_MF0KUg42x_Vp&index=12
x40 Maxwell C. Bridges : overcoming your failure of imagination
2025-10-15
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, You are jumping to conclusions and trying to get the evidence to match your pre-ordained nanothermite theory. The actual evidence in the video is that something excessively hot was involved, a temperature that fires from jet fuel and office furnishings could not reach. Something else was involved.
You wrote: "... I cannot imagine an explanation consistent with a nuclear reaction."
Let me assist you in overcoming your failure of imagination. A point you may have missed in my multi-reply is that the tandem nuclear implementation was not 100% perfect. My proposed multiple FGNW did exhibit some "nuclear fizzle", which is a technical term that you can Google along with "Fukushima" and "Chernobyl."
[Wild-ass speculation] If we assume only nuclear involvement, the impacting plane could have negatively affected the placement and functionality of one or more devices at or near that level causing it or them to, say, "initiate" a nuclear process but not fulfill its nuclear yield; in fact, it could have been fouled and stuck in an incomplete fission process. A fouled nuclear device could very well sit and smolder and radiate excessive heat (and radiation badness), causing trapped survivors to jump from windows and the very molten metals dripping out the windows depicted in your video.
Of course, I'd be a fool to argue the mutual exclusivity of any mechanism of destruction. It is no skin off of my nose to allow for NT involvement, which this molten metal dripping, combined with the angled cut of support beams at the base, might just substantiate.
You'll recall that early on I made a couple of adjustments to the framing of our discussion, albeit with lots of leeway. This discussion isn't about "involvement," because I can readily concede the involvement of even kitchen sinks (literally). This discussion is about the >>PRIMARY<< mechanism of destruction, where NT comes up short.
Just as importantly, I've dragged you out of your comfort zone by considering WTC-4 first, from which later we can circle back to WTC towers. NT doesn't explain the fresh, content rich, billowing clouds from where WTC-4 was before the WTC-2 wall assemblies reached it, clearly visible from different angles in the WTC-2 compilation videos after a viewer has been primed on what to look for.
If we can figure out what decimated WTC-4, it becomes an easy and lazy case to make "in for a penny, in for a pound" that this same primary destructive mechanism (e.g., multiple FGNW) probably also accounts for the anomalous damage to WTC-5 and crater of WTC-6; and if such were so readily available in those instances, then they easily extrapolate backwards to WTC-7, WTC-1, and WTC-2.
//
x42 Maxwell C. Bridges : Broken into Eleven (11) Comments
2025-10-27
Reply 1/11: Here begins the first in a row of several top-level comments. Three comments of mine have been deleted in the thread with Mr. Reese Erch-Guy.
My super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not to be) are still willing to give Mr. Reese Erch-Guy the benefit of the doubt that he was ~not~ responsible for deleting my replies under his top-level comment.
In nearly all cases, it was clear that my comment survived enough to be seen by Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, because his subsequent replies quoted or referenced topics from my deleted comment.
//
Reply 2/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "1. Even if I grant every point to you, that doesn't get us to"disinfo," much less "blatant disinfo." Most of the evidence that you claim exists is quite obscure."
You might not see it yet, but you will.
[a] I consider Dr. Steven Jones's "repudiation of nukes" (2007) blatant disinformation, because even a half-assed literature review and search for exotic weapons (fourth generation nuclear weapons) would have brought up Dr. Andre Gsponer (2005, 1999). When Dr. Jones discussed nuclear devices, he didn't even mention neutron bombs (the grandfather to my exotic FGNW), let alone anything tactical and smaller. HUGE OMISSION.
[b] I consider AE9/11Truth's FAQ's on nuclear devices blatant disinformation, because it does the clever trick of framing it as "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." I'm forced to agree. Why? Because a blast wave was not one of the designed outputs of the FGNW. Highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion was the primary nuclear yield (80%) of an already tactical level device. The effects of highly energetic neutrons passing through content are vastly different than a destructive blast wave.
[c] I consider nanothermite blatant disinformation, because it doesn't even attempt to address all of the anomalies, or all of the buildings in the WTC. It ignores the fingerprints of both fission and fusion, the energy requirements, the logistics. Even the math on quantities required for (1) pulverization and (2) duration of hot-spots does not add up to the observed evidence without it representing massively obscene quantities that ain't Occam Razar for logistics.
//
Reply 3/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "Who exactly do you think DELIBERATELY created and/or supported the nanothermite theory with the INTENT of sidelining a proper investigation?"
The INTENT probably came from many upper-levels in the psyops operation, whereby Dr. Steven Jones was the pawn doing the government's "hatchet-man" activities (against 9/11 nukes), like he had done in the 1990's with Pons and Fleischman "cold fusion".
You'll note that when Dr. Jones "repudiated nukes" (2007), he created a vacuum that needed to be filled. Nanothermite was quite literally just handed to him (dust samples collected from the inside of an apartment near the WTC by the owner, we're told). As mentioned in my posting, there are all sorts of anomalies that NT cannot address easily, from the brisance of the pulverization to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, to the fingerprints of fission and fusin, to WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7.
Dr. Jones tried to park the truth movement's understanding at a lame NT premise that doesn't go the distance required.
Taking this further, David Chandler and Richard Gage -- AE9/11Truth -- have kept understanding parked at NT, when they knew better. I, and probably others, would send messages that they should keep their eyes and minds open to explanations that could address all of the anomalies. Wayne Coste and others as well.
//
Reply 4/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "2. You make many claims without providing clear references. Please cite specific sources for your claims, such as the claims that "WTC-4 was going up in smoke while WTC-2's "smashing" wall assemblies were still in the air" and "Ditto for WTC-6's crater with respect to WTC-1." (Some of your claims need no support, such as "That they named it "Ground Zero," but that claim doesn't support your conclusions.)
I do make many claims, AND I do cite references. You just haven't taken the time to review my work (on WTC-4) whereby the URL's were provided, and from within those works, more reference URL's are provided.
SPOILER ALERT: My WTC-4 work relies on this compilation video of WTC-2. I go through this video a couple times and created screenshots with time references into the video to point out the exact anomalies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfphCLtUUI
You need to keep clicking and boring into its many collapsed sections. Done that way for ease of navigation. I just learned a new trick: if you click on an image, it allows you to see a larger version of it with a navigation bar at the bottom to click through the other images on the page.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
Take your time digesting my WTC-4 analysis.
//
Reply 5/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "If others care to continue any part of this debate, I would encourage them to first ask themselves, if nanothermite is really the "red herring" that Bridges thinks we've been chasing, why hasn't it gotten more attention from official investigative bodies?"
What official investigative bodies? Is Mr. Reese Erch-Guy referring to the same (government) "official investigative bodies" who have ignored nanothermite, nuclear involvement, or any plausible explanation except the all-power of Allah who used two planes to destroy three skyscrapers through their paths of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration while also expelling heavy content laterally WITHOUT adding any extra energy?
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "Wouldn't those bodies be grudgingly willing to follow up on the leads that we've provided them, and then tell us some credible reason why it was leads have not panned out?"
And I thought my super-powers were being naive and trusting! Why would (government) "official investigative bodies" look into anything that discredited the government and the foreign policy that it had outlined in PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? President Bush said it best: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
If I am in error on Mr. Reese Erch-Guy's "official investigative bodies" and he is really referring to such groups within the 9/11 Truth Movement (e.g., AE9/11Truth), they were infiltrated and controlled such they would only promote the secondary psyops narratives [NT, DEW-from-afar, deep-underground nukes, no planes at the WTC].
How do we know this to be the case? Because sincere seekers of Truth follow it where ever it needs to go, and will acknowledge weaknesses to (their) premises and adjust beliefs accordingly.
What we see with 9/11 Truth is that none of the secondary psyops narratives will ever legitimately attack and thoroughly debunk any of the other secondary narratives. Why? Because the total 9/11 psyops benefits from keeping false secondary narratives in play. Worse, any such deep discussion damages both false narratives, because they all have major discrediting issues.
//
Reply 6/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "I'm not counting NIST's ridiculous response regarding WTC 7 to the effect that explosive blasts would have been loud and no one heard any such blasts. Plenty of people onsite heard such blasts from all three of the tallest buildings involved in this debate."
Important point: hearing explosions or explosive blasts does not always equate to chemical-based explosives.
//
Reply 7/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "Blasts on every other floor, after the first half-second or so of the wave of destruction, would have come so close together, the resulting sound would have been a general roar ... which is exactly what we hear all the videos' audio tracks. The firefighters who reported a "pop-pop-pop" sound must've been referring to the beginning(s) of the destruction."
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy is causing major problems for himself and his NT theory, because he is blatantly mischaracterizing the evidence.
First of all, "blasts on every other floor" is a falsehood that the firefighters testimony handily discredits when they said "pop-pop-pop" at a cadence that could be counted. For the sake of discussion, let's use round numbers of 80 floors falling in 8 seconds and let's assume conventional chemical-based explosives (including anything mixed with NT); these numbers can be tweak later to be more accurate, but the conclusion will be the same.
Case A: Every floor is wired for demolition and is timed properly. This itself would result in 10 explosions per second -- a machine gun popping --, which I maintain would not be something a human firefighter could count.
Case B: "Blasts on every other floor" would result in 5 explosions per second, which also is not a cadence that a human firefighter could count.
Case C: "Pop-pop-pop" suggests 2 or 3 explosions per second, which then translates to detonations every 4 or 5 floors.
Case C1: Every 4th or 5th floor is wired for demolition. The problem with this is that the explosive mechanism would use a blast wave to destroy the floor without explosives, making it louder.
Case C2: Every floor is wired for demolition but is detonated 4 to 5 floors at a time. The combined detonation would be loud.
Something Mr. Reese Erch-Guy didn't bring up is that the squibs blasted out of the center of the outside wall on the detonation levels that were clearly 10 to 20 floors apart.
When considering chemical based explosives, the first anomaly is that the squibs were localized to (say) every 10th floor. If every floor or every other floor were wired for demolition, then every floor wired ought to have those squibs.
The second anomaly is that the squib was at the center of the floor and did not consume the length of the detonation floor, which would be expected if it was dustifying all of that floor's concrete.
So how does my premise of exotic nukes (FGNW) explain this?
- Each detonation level had four FGNW mounted on the outside walls of the inner core and aimed away from the inner core. Maybe the ignition to full nuclear yield took a measurable piece of time, or maybe the output yield had a measurable duration, in which even having a stable mounting platform (the inner core) that was not going to blasted out from underneath it (by the FGNW at the next lower detonation level) was a requirement, which then led to the anomaly in both towers of "the spire", remnants of the inner core that remained standing after the building around it fell away.
- The FGNW were hybrid fission/fusion devices. A conventional charge was used to smash together fissile material in the fission stage. The observed squibs coming out the center of each demolition floor could have been the kick-back from the conventional charge, or even a directed blast wave from the device.
- The main nuclear yield of each FGNW was highly energetic neutrons emitted in a targeted fashion: cone-shaped aimed (fanning out) upwards. After ignition and the squib at the detonation level, the FGNW dustified whatever was in the path of its cone. The edges of that cone didn't even graze the insides of the wall assemblies until 10 or 20 stories ~above~ where the squib appeared.
Refer to the rough pictures in the following paper.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
Reply 8/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "The refutations of the mini-nuke argument practically write themselves."
Actually, they do not, because I'm not making an argument for "mini-nukes," even though my proposed exotic FGNW are nuclear and tactical in yield. Naming and definitions are important.
"Mini-nukes" implies the same nuclear yields as large nukes, only scaled down. These yields are a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. To be sure, FGNW had also had all of these, but because it was releasing it neutrons (instead of letting them bounce around in the kernel to create chain reactions for big outputs), they did not have significant blast waves (beyond the aforementioned squibs). The outer wall assemblies and metal floor pans below the detonation level would keep most of the EMP in check.
//
Reply 9/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "There's also the molten metal running down the channel rails etc. Were there micro-third-and-a-half-generation nukes that did not exert much blast force but instead only caused structural steel to melt and run "like lava from a volcano"?"
A huge false assumption that Mr. Reese Erch-Guy makes is that 9/11 was a perfectly executed operation. It wasn't. Examples include WTC-7 not falling when the other buildings fell, WTC-2 being destroyed before WTC-1 (because firefighters were able to assess what it would take to get WTC-2 under control).
The problem with using "micro-third-and-a-half-generation nukes" (micro-nukes, mini-nukes) in tandem is that the spherical emission of neutrons will foul neighboring devices, causing nuclear fizzle. FGNW devices emit their neutrons in a targeted fashion. Therefore, FGNW can be used in tandem if all devices aim their emissions away from the others, and the chances of nuclear fizzle diminish.
Nuclear fizzle is anything short of the expected nuclear yield: from nothing, to devices smoldering like a Chernobyl, to devices exhibited some level of expected yield (e.g., heat) but not the full yield.
The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is one example of where maybe some FGNW got fouled and exhibited nuclear fizzle.
There are two instances that I'm aware where someone used the quote: "the molten metal running down the channel rails."
The first reference is what firemen observed underneath the towers. Yes, the normal output of a FGNW could have caused some of this, but more likely some FGNW got fouled, exhibited nuclear fizzle, and was smoldering like a Chernobyl meltdown under the rubble.
The second reference is what 9/11 Truthers call the liquid metal seen running down the rails and dripping out of the towers near the impact levels before the collapse. The impacting airplane could have caused a pre-mature ignition, misfire, and nuclear fizzle with one or more FGNW at or near that level. In fact, a smoldering FGNW near the impact level (and near the core) could have been the cause of the human feeling the need to jump rather than wait at the windows.
//
Reply 10/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "FWIW, here's ChatGPT's take on one part of your evidence."
FWIW, I've been there and done that. FGNW Discussion Volume Number 5, Part 21: "FGNW Discussions with ChatGPT"
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/fgnw-discussions-vol-5.html
AI is dependent on (a) the model and (b) the data the model is run against. The default state of ChatGPT's understanding is what it mined from readily available sources. In order to get at the truth, you have to frame your discussion and tell it to "assume this or that" in order to get over inherent bias.
ChatGPT wrote: "USGS analyzed various samples of dust from the destruction of the World Trade Center. Concentrations of barium and strontium were found at approximately one part per thousand. Someone has argued that such high concentrations are indicative of exotic versions of nuclear reactions that were responsible for the destruction of all the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001.
There were two reports on the dust -- USGS and Paul Lioy et al -- that had data tables that among other things showed Uranium and all of its decay elements (not just Uranium, barium, and strontium). The plain text of these reports talked about nearly all elements appearing in the data tables, except Uranium and its decay elements.
Whereas in 2025, ChatGPT can write: "plenty of ordinary, non-nuclear things in early-2000s office towers can explain [certain elements] in the WTC dust," this is "a day late and a dollar short."
In other words, both of those reports were required to provide such explanations in the plain text surrounding the data tables. This was a major and glaring omission. One could easily conclude that some supervisor in the chain of command knew that the mechanisms of destruction were nuclear, so removed these explanations for these fingerprint elements (of fission).
Further, owing to the pressure imposed by government on various scientific agencies to produce stilted efforts (that were stonewalled, delayed, slow-walked, scope-limited, and incomplete), these glaring omissions means that the official reports can be trusted at face value. [Example: NIST's report on WTC-7, much delayed, divided 18 stories of its demise into three stages. Although stage 2 was identical to "gravitational acceleration", NIST average these three stages together to say with a straight face and no lying ticks that these 18 stories fell "slower than freefall." FYI "freefall" and "gravitational acceleration" are the same thing, which stage 2 of 8 stories and over 100 feet demonstrated.]
[Wild-ass speculation] If I was charged with hiding the means-and-methods of the WTC's nuclear demise, I would create an alternative data table that would use an algorithm to reduce the measured quantities for fissile related elements and increase quantities for benign elements so that the data table still adds to 100%, [similar to how Musk's election machine hack reduced votes for Harris and increased votes for Frump in battleground states.]
The omission of explanations in these two reports gives us little confidence to trust the values themselves in the data table.
Therefore, it is a fool's game to argue about a known flawed report whether its measured values are closer to normal building content or a fission process.
Let us mention the tritium report in this context. Had two disperse sampling days, had a small number of samples, measured them from limited places (run-off to WTC-6), and faulty extrapolation backwards to possible content in the towers -- aircraft exit signs, weapons' sights, and time pieces. It re-defined "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than its definition prior to 2001.
Tritium is the building block of all late-third/early-fourth generation (exotic) nuclear weapons for their fusion stages. [There's an interesting book "Tritium on Ice" about efforts of the Bush Administration to get a steady production of tritium for its nuclear weapons stockpiles, because the half-life of tritium is only 15 years, so all weapons based on this need regular tritium refreshes.]
~That~ fingerprints of fission were in the dust; ~that~ fingerprints of fusion were in the water and air samples; ~that~ the energy of the observed pulverization was so exuberant; ~that~ under-rubble hot-spots were months later still continuing to re-generate metal particles into the air; ~that~ videos of the aftermath show leaching radiation: these all point to exotic nuclear weapons.
However, the cover-up to this revelation is the largest waving red flag to nuclear involvement.
I mean, Dr. Jones framed his nuclear rebuttal around large nukes, ignoring anything next-generation by calling it "exotic." Dr. Jones accepted at face-value all government reports, despite having greater reasons to distrust. Most of the nuclear framing is "single-nuke per tower, and underneath each tower." AE9/11Truth framed its debunking of all things nuclear around "nuclear blast", which ignores those exotic nuclear weapons that don't have a significant blast wave, because their primary nuclear yield is, say, highly energetic neutrons emitted in a targeted fashion.
Here's a related nugget of truth. The anomaly that Dr. Jones (and his followers) highlighted from the dust reports was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust. He and Dr. Neils Harrit postulated that these iron spheres were a by-product of the NT reaction. The problem with this is the high school math and chemistry that reverse calculates massive amounts of NT to achieve this outcome. [Worse, that same math and chemistry applied to the unspent NT that created and maintained the hot-spots for months calculates an even larger obscenely massive amount of NT, on top of the massive quantities that caused the WTC destruction. Logistically speaking, that dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.]
FGNW suggests that its highly energetic neutrons deposited so much energy into the metal floor pans and steel rebar that they ablated (e.g., leading edge vaporizes so quickly, it creates a shockwave within the material that blows it apart) and created these iron spheres.
//
Reply 11/11: The patron saint of 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Your assignment is to watch these NIST videos. Because you champion NT, you are to contemplate what the placement of NT would be to achieve these anomalies.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
//
Or, you could use this video and explain how NT was theoretically positioned to create its anomalies:
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] FGNW's instant volume heating explains a gash along 1/3 or more of the length of a box column and through the spandrel (thicker) area. The wall assembly was volume heated and made pliable such that something was able to gouge it. The edges of the gash wilted inwards.
1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.[20] "Steel Doobies:" the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly are wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the sprandels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.
1:27:00 Column smoothly bent into a C-shape and smoothly bent steel. In the non-nuclear real-world, many minutes in a blast furnace is normally required to heat structural steel beams sufficiently end-to-end in order to get it to bend.
1:39:00 and 1:57:00 Radiation affecting the video camera.
//
x44 Reese Erch-Guy : Gish gallop
2025-10-27
to admit I see why you don't get anybody else to debate with you. You throw an overwhelming amount of information at your opponent. It's called a "Gish gallop." I appreciate your cordiality in not demanding immediate responses, but regardless of how cordial you are, it could take me many hours to respond to just to your latest responses.
If you were to bring a lawsuit against the people you think aided or abetted the job, it would be worth their while to devote the resources required to respond appropriately to all of this information.
You have asked me to explain certain things such as the infamous (in our circles) curved I-beam. How would small nuclear weapons explain that any better than NT? Why are you asking me for an explanation if you haven't offered one yourself?
I'm going to make a couple of final points and then most likely bow out indefinitely, if not forever.
First, it does not help your case to claim that NT is blatant this info, and you have not supported that position. That claim seems to constitute defamation against one of the most honorable groups of people I have ever been acquainted with, including Steven Jones. If you ever decide to make your accusations in this regard more clear and explicit, I would be happy to join the other side as a paid paralegal to help them and their attorneys sue you for defamation. But don't worry. I've put similar offers out to the community of COVID-jab-injured. Several conversations ensued, but all that ever happened was that my time was burned up. Nobody ever actually decided to sue anybody. The vast majority seem to suffer from learned helplessness.
We get only the amount of justice we can afford, if we are lucky. With 9/11, the fix was in from the beginning. If nobody is going to pull the resources together to hold the perpetrators accountable, then it really doesn't fucken matter how exactly they did it, does it?
x46 Maxwell C. Bridges : I am not a push-over and substantiate my position in an articulate fashion
2025-10-27
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, Part 1/4 you wrote: "I see why you don't get anybody else to debate with you. You throw an overwhelming amount of information at your opponent."
That isn't why they won't debate me. I didn't start out with an overwhelming amount of information; I built it up over time. Their problem and yours is that I have already fought those battles, addressed just about anything they or you could dig up, and was objective enough to evolve my understanding with new information or analysis.
Recognizing early on the issues of lack of internet-permanence, I saved my work as I went along and re-published (when I got around to it) to a venue that I control, my "vanity blog" to appease my writer's ego. Its benefit to me today is as a quasi-database that I can lazily data-mine and copy-and-paste when I get re-tread arguments thrown at me. "Been there, done that, here's an edited copy of my response."
No, the reason they won't debate me is that they readily learn that I am not a push-over and substantiate my position in an articulate fashion (with links) and can't be so easily banned for "inappropriate internet conduct". Worse, I have Truth on my side and the receipts that undermines their position, something they have been championing for years. "Cognitive Dissonance" kicks in along with their egos, to have their "life's work in 9/11 Truth" not just questioned but kicked to the curb... Yeah, they no like-y.
You wrote: (regarding an overwhelming amount of information) "It's called a 'Gish gallop.'" ["The 'Gish gallop' is a rhetorical technique of overwhelming an opponent with a rapid-fire, excessive number of arguments, regardless of their accuracy or validity, to make refutation impossible in the allotted time.]
No, wait a minute. I'll not be blamed for providing you exactly what you desired.
- "why you think the evidence favors FGNW over nanothermite."
- "how it would help get justice or any other high-level benefit, if the "truth movement" were to accept your conclusions about FGNW."
- "Can you be more specific about the errors that you believe Steven Jones made in his analysis of nuclear theories?"
These were not shallow questions, and neither should their answers have been. I will also not be faulted for being prepared.
Moreover, I'm not doing anything "rapid-fire." I'm not Johnny-on-the-spot with my replies to you. I'm not shooting from the hip with twitter-length distractions here and there.
My eleven part comment?
(a) I wrote it offline as one comment. (b) Owing to perceived issues with Facebook disappearing my comments, I was attempting a new tactic; you were told why and given warning. (c) I broke it in parts and knew how many parts there would be before I posted any of them. (d) Whether considering the parts individually or as one big whole comment, they all (except 1 or 2) were quoting from you directly and addressing issues that you brought up. So if you try to hold them up as "gish gallop" and "excessive number of arguments, regardless of their accuracy or validity," it was you who established the excessive number and essentially the structure of my reply: sentence-by-sentence. (e) The multi-part top-level comment facilitates your replies and allows you to focus. Alas, it also exposes whenever you don't reply to defend your statements.
I've applied no time pressure on your responses.
Ergo, your accusation of me "gish galloping" is handily refuted.
You wrote: "I appreciate your cordiality in not demanding immediate responses, but regardless of how cordial you are, it could take me many hours to respond to just to your latest responses."
I agree, it could and should take you many hours to respond. The YouTube videos of the Fresh Kills site -- if you don't fast-forward to the timestamps that my work highlights -- are themselves more than a couple hours. My multi-part comment also took several hours, and for sure the write-up's on my blog took many, many more.
You're behind and playing catch-up, and now are complaining that it is hard.
You wrote: "If you were to bring a lawsuit against the people you think aided or abetted the job, it would be worth their while to devote the resources required to respond appropriately to all of this information."
You aren't specific enough with "people who aided or abetted the job." By job, are you referring to the WTC destruction on 9/11? Or are you referring to the cover-up, such as AE9/11Truth? I'll defer addressing this until you provide more clarity.
// Part 1/4
Part 2/4 Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, You wrote: "You have asked me to explain certain things such as the infamous (in our circles) curved I-beam."
Actually, there are other pieces of evidence from Fresh Kills video that are far more interesting, like the hollow box columns of a wall assembly that came apart at their seams and had ripples or waves on their face, indicating a thorough end-to-end heating.
But if you want to limit discussion to the infamous curved I-beam...
You wrote: "How would small nuclear weapons explain that any better than NT? Why are you asking me for an explanation if you haven't offered one yourself?"
Conventionally, how do foundries curve I-beams? The beams are placed into very hot blast furnaces for some prescribed period of time (much greater in duration than the 11 seconds of WTC building destruction.) The non-trivial heat permeates the beam end-to-end allowing it to be curved or bent.
In a demolition scenario with conventional chemical-based explosives (with or without NT), there are two main effects: (1) to the localized area that the explosive is attached to directly, causing excessive localized destruction; (2) to other areas of the structure further away from the blast.
Clearly to explain the I-beam, the explosive wasn't #1 and attached directly to the curved or bent beam, because that portion would be mangled and blown to pieces, not neatly bent. Therefore, the beam would have been #2 and further away from the blast. Heat drops off by like the square-root of the distance (or something scientific sounding like that). How could an explosive instantly generate WITHIN the beam end-to-end volume heating to allow smooth bending?
How would my proposed FGNW accomplish the infamous curved I-beam?
There are two potential ways. (1) The purpose of the fission stage of the hybrid fission/fusion FGNW was to generate sufficient heat for the fusion stage. All nuclear devices have a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP; but when the highly energetic neutrons are allowed to escape -- the primary nuclear yield --, those three side-effects are minimized (combined 20% of yield). (I speculate the observable squibs were the blast wave of those local devices.) However, the heat wave of the ignition and fission stage could theoretically be sufficient to almost instantly >>volume<< heat nearby I-beams to the temperature required for bending.
(2) The primary nuclear yield was highly energetic neutrons released in a targeted fashion. The neutrons pass through all materials, but not without shucking off energy into the molecular structure of that material, usually in the form of heat (very high heat, throughout the molecular structure of the material.) Very much under-represented in the debris were the metal pans, trusses, and rebar that supported the concrete floors. The highly energetic neutrons ablated these materials turning them into the "significant percentage of tiny iron spheres" that is the true red-flag anomaly from the reports on the dust. I speculate that if the I-beam was further away from the ignition point and through much content, the no-longer-quite-so-energetic beam of neutrons hitting and passing through the full length of an I-beam could leave sufficient energy behind in the form of heat to make the I-beam pliable.
I mentioned the wall assemblies at Fresh Kills had hollow box columns that were separated at their seams and had waves or ripples on the metal sheets that were the inside face of the wall assemblies. I speculate that the FGNW was ignited at one level and sent its cone beam of highly energetic neutrons upwards, effectively dustifying a cone shape into all of the floors above it. At about (say) 20 floors above the ignition is when the cone beam would start grazing and passing through the wall assemblies. Although much energy was shucked off the highly energetic neutron beam when passing through (say) 20 floors of concrete, the energetic neutrons had sufficient energy to volume heat the wall assemblies and their box columns. Sufficient volume heating for the welds of the box column seams to come apart and for the metal plate that was the inside face of the box column to get ripples from the instant volume heating making it pliable and gravity.
The anomaly known as the "steel doobies" -- the hollow columns of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle by the spandrels -- was created in this manner as well. The wall assemblies and particularly the spandrels were volume heated and pliable. Lateral forces from ablating content separated the wall assembly from the structure and got the wall assembly twisted into the steel doobie while still in the air.
// Part 2/4
Part 3/4 Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, You wrote: "I'm going to make a couple of final points and then most likely bow out indefinitely, if not forever."
You shouldn't, but it wouldn't surprise me if you did. You were ready to opt-out as soon as you faced mild condescension. You haven't defended NT very well, nor have you debunked FGNW. As a co-author of the NT paper (I don't know which one(s)), your reputation could be on the line.
More importantly, are you as open-minded and objective as you tell yourself?
You wrote: "First, it does not help your case to claim that NT is blatant this info, and you have not supported that position."
Wrong on both counts. My position has been supported and substantiated, and you admit to needing still many hours to review my work and author your reply. Ergo, that was both lame and pre-mature.
Ten or fifteen years ago, you might have been correct that calling NT blatant disinfo doesn't help my case. But after all these years of sincere and persistent engagement and experiencing the "blackhole treatment", calling NT truthfully blatant disinfo is about the only trigger that gets comfortable truthers such as yourself to perk up, pay attention, and try (and fail) to prove it wrong.
You wrote: "That claim seems to constitute defamation against one of the most honorable groups of people I have ever been acquainted with, including Steven Jones."
Honorable doesn't mean that the group is immune from infiltration and steering. It only takes but one errant finger on the wheel to steer a car into the weeds.
More importantly, I criticize legitimately the works of Dr. Steven Jones and AE9/11Truth. My Bruce Wayne is a vetted member of AE9/11Truth, so I have standing to bring up issues and complaints with their work to have it fixed. You still haven't addressed and refuted the problems with Dr. Jones's "repudiation of all forms of nuclear devices" and with NT which can't explain even a fraction of the anomalies, such as the I-beam or wavey faces of box columns separated at their seams.
Our patron saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Ray Griffin, described a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
The entirety of the FEMA/NIST videos (given in one of the 11 parts) of the select pieces of Fresh Kills is evidence that Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth ignore.
// Part 3/4
Part 4/4 Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, You wrote: "If you ever decide to make your accusations in this regard more clear and explicit, I would be happy to join the other side as a paid paralegal to help them and their attorneys sue you for defamation."
"BRING IT ON, BITCH!!!" ("Breaking Bad" reference; see my profile picture.) Hell, I'll even give you the Bruce Wayne to my online Batman to make filing your defamation suit easier.
Here's some condescension to your paralegal abilities. Defamation has three very important factors that will invalidate your suit from the get-go. I'll give them in reverse order.
Factor 3: Statute of Limitations. I have been active since 2010 with sincere efforts to get influencers in the 9/11 Truth Movement to take discussions with me about NT and FGNW seriously. I don't know the exact date when I publicly started uttering the phrases "disinformation" and "disinformation agent" with respect to NT and Dr. Jones, but it goes way back beyond the statute of limitations for libel and defamation. If that's what it was, then the time to address it with legal action was years ago. FAIL.
The following link isn't the earliest instance of me publicly criticizing legitimately the work of Dr. Jones, but it is a complete and thorough one. There are four sections starting with "Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow" that YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY READ.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
WARNING: As a lazy human, my subsequent works often quote or contain entire passages or sections from my previous works. Not plagiarism in the least. I apologize in advance for the repetition you might encounter when reading my works.
At any rate, let's ignore that Factor 3 alone will torpedo your defamation suit.
Factor 2: Damages. Without monetary damages, no lawyer will take your case, because they won't get paid. So, the onus is on you to prove how my rarely-read vanity blog (or original Facebook comments) cost the good Dr. Jones (or AE9/11Truth) money. Was he fired from his job? Was he prevented from getting another job? Did he lose a speaking engagement? Did he forfeit revenue off of the swag and products from his commercialized web site? Did he not have his own opportunities to address the criticism and complaints publicly, or was he not defended by others publicly?
Let's assume that you can get a 9/11 Truth pro-bono lawyer. Doesn't matter, the judge is still going to want to know what the monetary or qualifiable damages are to determine if the case has merit.
As with Factor 3, let's ignore that Factor 2 also will alone torpedo your defamation suit.
Factor 1: Truth. Truth is the ultimate defense against defamation. If what I wrote regarding criticisms of the works of Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth is substantiated as valid, and if this is the basis for "disinfo" labels applied to their work, and by extension to themselves, it isn't defamation; it becomes a validated character assessment.
What's funny is that because you still have many hours of work to do, in this moment you yourself cannot invalidate my criticisms of their work.
Although I do not relish having to pay a lawyer to defend myself against your defamation suit, I know that these three factors are in my favor. And it will be kind of ironic that AE9/11Truth (say if they're in the suit) will be paying me... at least my lawyer's fees... when I win.
Meanwhile, though, this could be exactly what is necessary to galvanize 9/11 Truth. Talk about the PR shit-storm, but always with the underlying message "the USA and Mossad nuked us on 9/11." Worse, AE9/11Truth and Dr. Jones in their shoddy and stilted efforts, tried to cover-up for the nuclear premise as a secondary narrative to the psyops.
Damn, girl! If I had star advisors helping me from the 5th dimension to "feed my sheep" about 9/11's nuclear nature, this (merit-less) defamation suit played out big in social media would be their plan for you and me as their pawns.
You wrote: "But don't worry. I've put similar offers out to the community of COVID-jab-injured. Several conversations ensued, but all that ever happened was that my time was burned up. Nobody ever actually decided to sue anybody. The vast majority seem to suffer from learned helplessness."
What? You get me all riled up with my three factors of the defamation suit, and then you say "don't worry." Do you mean, you're not going to sue me?!!! Damn, well maybe you ought to re-think that. "All publicity is good publicity."
You wrote: "We get only the amount of justice we can afford, if we are lucky. With 9/11, the fix was in from the beginning."
I agree.
You wrote: "If nobody is going to pull the resources together to hold the perpetrators accountable, then it really doesn't fucken matter how exactly they did it, does it?"
I disagree with "it really doesn't fucken matter how exactly they did it, does it?"
How they did it, does matter. Example: Man dies of stab wounds in the kitchen. [A] Woman used a kitchen knife to defend herself. [B] Woman forged a knife in her garage and honed a perfect edge to the blade over several weeks and then planned her attack of the man in her kitchen, leaving him with so many stab wounds, he looked like a crazed knife sewing machine had gone to work on his body.
How they did it, does matter. In fact, it might matter even more today as we battle the ills of project Frump 47. Allow me to explain.
Today Frump is pulled one direction by the Russians owing to their own compromat, while Is*re*al pulls him another with the Epstein blackmail. Everything he has done in office benefits those two nations. With Epstein in particular, the damage isn't just to Frump but to many major players and the entire establishment. [Epstein was a financial genius with no morals; he was all about tax evasion and hiding money. Epstein may also have had a role in the 2008 financial crisis initiated by Bear Stearns.] Summary, many bad things and an Is*re*al connection.
If these notions were nuclear energized by the public awareness of Is*re*al (and USA) nuclear involvement on 9/11, that might be the tipping point.
It comes down to: "what did so-and-so know, when did they know it, why did they cover it up?" Stated another way, this becomes a 9/11 nuclear litmus test for government officials that has figurative nuclear fallout on bad actors and Is*re*al.
// Part 4/4
x48 Reese Erch-Guy : prove that his position was not just false but "BLATANT"LY false
2025-10-27
Maxwell C. Bridges "Do you mean, you're not going to sue me?!!" Nothing I said about defamation gave you any grounds to think that *I* was going to sue you. I care a lot more about the reputations of the other co-authors of the paper and everyone else who has presented the evidence in favor of nanothermite being the key factor in the WTC destruction. And I have enough litigation on my hands already, to the point where I would not make myself the center of any such endeavor.
But I would still love to hear you articulate a clear accusation about the level of consciousness of all the people who have supported the nanothermite theory as to how all of them were part of a conspiracy to defend the original conspiracy.
In all the words you've written since my posts from the other day, can you point me to anything that defends your position against the molten metal pouring out of the south tower in the stabilized video to which I posted a link? Are you positing some kind of 1 billionth of a megaton nuclear weapon? Why would anybody bother with that when we have all these other weapons that can put out the amount of energy that we see evident in that molten metal stream, and in the sudden changes of direction of steel girders that are already flying out of one of the towers, in another David Chandler video? I tried to find the link to it to post about it before, but since I couldn't find the link I don't think I said anything about that yet. In any case, those two simple pieces of evidence directly contradict your ridiculous third-and-1/2 generation nuclear bullshit.
I disagree with Jones' statement that a previously known explosive had to be added to the nanothermite to account for the observed level of destruction. But I can disagree with him without calling him a disinfo artist.
I love how the first defense that you crowed about was that the statute of limitations has expired. It's funny that you would invoke that procedural dodge instead of referring to a substantive reason as to why you think the "wrongness" of the nanothermite theory -- assuming you could ever prove that it was wrong -- was a position that was adopted despite knowing it was wrong.
Aside from the legalities, and kind of as a joke, I will point out that even if you got a confession from Steven Jones' mother that HE never really believed the nanothermite theory, you would still have to prove that his position was not just false but "BLATANT"LY false. Good luck with that. Not every position that turns out to be false is BLATANTLY false. You only used that adverb to try to generate emotional support for your position. And I took the bait because I knew that I could disprove the specific "blatant" accusation. Supposing that NT is/was disinfo, it was actually exceedingly subtle! But by repeating your allegation, you might have restarted the SOL clock.
To address one other point about the legalities, damages don't have to be proven when what you have alleged is defamation per se. That is true when what you have alleged is a crime. Deliberately dissuading people from following the evidence in a rational direction, is arguably obstruction of justice at a minimum, if not accessory to 3000 murders after the fact.
x50 Maxwell C. Bridges : "the level of consciousness of all the people who have supported the nanothermite theory" is one of "blinded-by-science"
2025-10-30
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, part 1/3 you wrote: "I care a lot more about the reputations of the other co-authors of the paper and everyone else who has presented the evidence in favor of nanothermite being the key factor in the WTC destruction."
You shouldn't care about the reputations of the other co-authors. Or rather, you shouldn't care more about their reputations than you should care about Truth.
You wrote: "But I would still love to hear you articulate a clear accusation about the level of consciousness of all the people who have supported the nanothermite theory as to how all of them were part of a conspiracy to defend the original conspiracy."
With the exception of the Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Gage, and few others, "the level of consciousness of all the people who have supported the nanothermite theory" is one of "blinded-by-science" and if a PhD said something, they must defer to their authority. Most of the NT-yeomen who really fought the online battles for NT are science-challenged; they can re-iterate the arguments that the PhD's made in their disinformation efforts, but they can't further the arguments or defend them against their weaknesses.
Hardly any of them truly looked at Dr. Jones work (or listened to the criticism of others who did read that work) and noticed its issues. Really easy for our eyes to glaze over it and go from "reading for comprehension" to just "skimming" from one picture to the next until they get to the conclusion, that they'd be a fool to disagree with a PhD about. Dr. Jones efforts truly demonstrate the principle expressed by Thomas Pynchon: "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
For instance, Dr. Jones did an admirable job in trying to associate six (6) instances of debris pile off-gassing to NT. But only those paying attention noticed his qualifiers: "something maintained the hot-spots, not just NT." A second related for instance, when Dr. Jones was confronted about NT being an incendiary and not an explosive, he said NT was mixed with something else (like RDX) to achieve the observed brisance. In both instances, rather than researching for that "something else" or promoting that "something else" as a research topic for others to pursue, Dr. Jones was silent.
In summary, most of the yeomen of 9/11 Truth who actively championed NT were out of their depth in trying to defend it. It became real cases of "cognitive dissonance" giving them headaches that their (NT) beliefs on 9/11 were questioned.
You wrote: "In all the words you've written since my posts from the other day, can you point me to anything that defends your position against the molten metal pouring out of the south tower in the stabilized video to which I posted a link?"
My reply 9 out of 11 addressed this. But my replies 9, 10, and 11 aren't showing up for me in Facebook, even when I ask to see all comments. Good thing I numbered them. Even better that I have source text and can re-post. CORRECTION: when I open up FB in a new tab and go into my posting to view the comments and select "all comments", then it shows me "Reply 9/11" and the next replies.
I guess that if you get into the comments under my posting via a notification link, it doesn't pre-load all of the comments so doesn't always have all branches of the discussion available.
You wrote: "Are you positing some kind of 1 billionth of a megaton nuclear weapon?"
No, I am not. You're just demonstrating that you haven't made it very far into any of my references papers. Worse, you did make it into Dr. Andre Gsponer's paper and seemingly have thrown it out of consideration for using future-tense. Mistake, because he describes many different nuclear yields from the fusion stage, which both his dreamy pure fusion devices (fourth generation) and my hybrid fission/fusion devices (late-3rd/pre-mature-4th generation) have.
I'll write it again: 80% of the nuclear yield of these FGNW is in highly energetic neutrons released in a targeted fashion.
Any of the milli-nukes, micro-nukes, billionth-of-a-megaton nuke that you are thinking of releases 80% (or more) of the nuclear yield as a heat wave and a blast wave, and this is also in a spherical explosive manner.
You wrote: "Why would anybody bother with that when we have all these other weapons that can put out the amount of energy that we see evident in that molten metal stream, and in the sudden changes of direction of steel girders that are already flying out of one of the towers, in another David Chandler video?"
Why would anybody bother with FGNW instead of conventional explosives (with or without NT)? Logistics is the big reason. They had plenty of time to prepare with mounting brackets and wiring, but the final phase of installing the actual destructive device without the noses of bomb sniffing dogs catching a whiff (only a few days over a weekend before 9/11 when the dogs were on vacation) would be a challenge. Conventional explosives placed on "every other level" (a massive amount), versus say ~40 FGNW per tower that just need to be clicked into the pre-mounted brackets.
Thinking about it another way, there have always been generals and majors with itchy trigger-fingers just (almost literally) dying over the prospect of using those high-tech nuclear weapons from the US arsenals.
You wrote: "I tried to find the link to it to post about it before, but since I couldn't find the link I don't think I said anything about that yet."
Not to worry, not only have I seen it, I've also commented on exactly that anomaly and how FGNW would explain "sudden changes of direction of steel girders that are already flying out of one of the towers."
// part 1/3
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, Part 2/3 The 9/11 psyops had contingency plans for its contingency plans, a very overkill operation.
Quick detour: "overkill" is an operative word describing the destruction. The destruction of the towers with conventional explosives (with or without NT), as proven by Hollywood and Las Vegas, could have been done in a manner that wasn't "near free-fall acceleration through the paths of greatest resistance while pulverizing content and laterally ejecting content." If they were using conventional explosives (with NT), why didn't they use all of those months of preparation and wizardry planning to make a more realistic and slower destruction of the towers and physics compliant? Why did they wire up not just overkill amounts to achieve the pulverization, but also unspent way-way-overkill amounts needed to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots that smoldered at high temperatures for months?
To have planned for the observed overkill pulverization translates into a huge logistics hurdle for conventional explosives (with or without NT). Not only were the boots-to-the-grounds teams small and compartmentalized, but they were also LAZY.
By going with FGNW instead, they greatly simplify logistics with the number of active devices that need to be installed, and without trying, they get the observed physics-flagging pulverization, because FGNW have the energy to spare.
Back to the "sudden changes of direction of steel girders that are already flying out of one of the towers." The output of the FGNW was a cone of highly energetic neutrons that wouldn't necessarily be visible to the human eye, except for how content seems to be turned to dust. The cone-shaped neutron output of FGNW lower in the tower could have at some point in the destruction exited the tower and hit that falling piece, causing ablation or other factors that mid-air would change its trajectory. (If you or others insist on NT involvement, the FGNW argument is that its cone-shaped highly energetic neutron output hit the NT still on the falling beam, causing it to ignite and mid-air change its trajectory.)
You wrote: "In any case, those two simple pieces of evidence directly contradict your ridiculous third-and-1/2 generation nuclear bullshit."
Au contraire. Those two simple pieces of evidence have been addressed and are found to be in alignment with my "ridiculous third-and-1/2 generation nuclear bullshit" that you are going to great efforts to >>not<< understand.
You wrote: "I disagree with Jones' statement that a previously known explosive had to be added to the nanothermite to account for the observed level of destruction. But I can disagree with him without calling him a disinfo artist."
Geesh, your disagreement with Dr. Jones regarding explosives mixed with NT makes your argument for NT even weaker. The reason Dr. Jones back-pedaled and made his statement was that pure NT could not explain the observed brisance and pulverization.
I call Dr. Jones a disinfo agent, because (a) he demonstrated that with Pons and Fleishman cold fusion "debunking", (b) he demonstrated that with his absolutely shitty and incomplete "repudiation of nukes" that omitted mentioning any nuclear weapon that wasn't already 50 years old, and (c) he demonstrated that with his NT theory that doesn't even come close to addressing all of the anomalies.
You wrote: "I love how the first defense that you crowed about was that the statute of limitations has expired."
Damn, Mr. "Reese Erch-Guy"! I guess your reading comprehension is as bad as your ability to dive into other people's research, "Reese Erch-Guy".
The statute of limitations was factor 3, not factor 1. I purposely reversed the order and described the weakest argument first and the strongest argument (factor 1) last, as any good wordsmith might be inclined to do.
You wrote: "It's funny that you would invoke that procedural dodge instead of referring to a substantive reason as to why you think the "wrongness" of the nanothermite theory -- assuming you could ever prove that it was wrong -- was a position that was adopted despite knowing it was wrong."
I'm going to ignore this, and I'm going to chalk it up to two factors. Factor 1, we know Facebook algorithms have been playing with hiding my comments from me at least, if not you as well. Factor 2, you have been wining about "gish galloping" and needing so much time to review my replies / work in order to compose your rebuttal. You feel overwhelmed, and attacked, so you simply haven't bothered to read-for-comprehension anything I've written that is a substantive reason about the "wrongness" of the NT theory.
You wrote: "Aside from the legalities, and kind of as a joke, I will point out that even if you got a confession from Steven Jones' mother that HE never really believed the nanothermite theory, you would still have to prove that his position was not just false but "BLATANT"LY false. Good luck with that."
Not a problem at all. I'd start with his "repudiation of nukes" and question how a nuclear physicists could completely omit "neutron bombs" in his comprehensive 9/11 nuke debunking discussion (even given that 1970's neutron bombs don't apply and would have been low-hanging fruit for him to debunk), before we get to the omission of the offspring of neutron bombs, FGNW. I would question if Dr. Jones had any NDA's that prevented him from talking about more modern nuclear research. His obvious answer of "yes" will seal the deal that his purposeful omissions weren't oversights, but were BLATANTLY done to misdirect the 9/11 Truth Movement.
At the end of that same "repudiation" work, Dr. Jones even challenged his readers (those with scientific chops to plow through to the end with understanding) to find the errors in his work. Almost like an Easter Egg drop and
(Dr. Jones imaginary speaking) "I've been called upon (e.g., pressured/threatened, my family as well) to act as a USA patriot by lying once again (Pons & Fleischman cold fusion) for the government and hindering the public revelation of nuclear involvement on 9/11, because the still-possible figurative nuclear fallout on government, agencies, officials, etc. by an angry public could be worse to establishments than the casualties of 9/11. But because it isn't the truth, I purposely did a shitty job that astute readers can find, question, and make a big stink about. Good luck."
You wrote: "Not every position that turns out to be false is BLATANTLY false. You only used that adverb to try to generate emotional support for your position."
I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. I used the adverb "BLATANTLY," because once you understand the (nuclear) Truth that has been leaking out of data tables, FEMA videos, omissions, and disinfo & cover-up efforts, it becomes to the objective and discerning eye: "BLATANTLY false."
I wasn't trying "to generate emotional support for (my) position." No. I'm pushing their fucking buttons! Like the king with no clothes, I'm the boy saying to most 9/11 truthers in the NT camp: "you been duped by very clever disinformation from the 9/11 psyops in one of its more successful secondary narratives and are suffering from cognitive dissonance that prevents you from questioning NT."
You wrote: "And I took the bait because I knew that I could disprove the specific 'blatant' accusation."
It sucks to have to inform you that you failed to "disprove the specific 'blatant' accusation." I did it briefly; I did it in detail; I gave overkill blog references from years ago. You've disproved nothing.
// part 2/3
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, Part 3/3 You wrote: "Supposing that NT is/was disinfo, it was actually exceedingly subtle!"
Indeed, NT was exceedingly subtle disinformation. Remember that Dr. Jones first had to dispatch any consideration of things nuclear and create a void in the public's understanding that the subtle NT disinfo would fill. And then after seeding and watering this, he got out of the 9/11 game; his disinfo agent role was over.
Recall also that the two other main prongs of disinformation were the secondary narratives (a) deep underground nukes, one per tower [nukers], and (b) directed energy weapons from afar [Woodsian-DEWers].
When you study those, the fact that their explanations (to the degree they have one) doesn't match the observable evidence [assuming the demolitions videos weren't faked, which was the September Clues / NPT@WTC argument] is just one aspect where they purposely championed their premises poorly, so they'd get discredited and debunked. [Why didn't Dr. Wood explore "DEW from within"?] Their inability to modify their premises and evolve, to decisively and legitimately take on and discredit the other (Nuke versus DEW), or to make up and hook up with the other to evolve an offspring of "nuclear-DEW" (which is what I originally called it, because it technically is both) shows how they and their champions were "BLATANLY disinfo" and untrustworthy.
Those secondary disinfo narratives were designed to be easily debunked, so rational thinkers would fall back on the NT premise. We can suspect a conspiracy when the three-way Mexican-Standoff results in zero decisive casualties -- (a) deep underground nukes, (b) DEW from afar, and (c) NT --, all three are alive and well, despite all three being disinfo.
You wrote: "But by repeating your allegation, you might have restarted the SOL clock."
Doesn't matter. Factor 2 (damages) and Factor 1 (truth) have got my back.
You wrote: "To address one other point about the legalities, damages don't have to be proven when what you have alleged is defamation per se. That is true when what you have alleged is a crime. Deliberately dissuading people from following the evidence in a rational direction, is arguably obstruction of justice at a minimum, if not accessory to 3000 murders after the fact."
I don't completely follow your statement. Your saying that the shoddy work of Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth, which served to dissuade people from following evidence in a rational direction, is "arguably obstruction of justice at a minimum, if not accessory to 3000 murders after the fact", correct?
Given that the recent courts have ruled that government agencies in their reports have no legal responsibility to be truthful, it makes it even less likely that Dr. Jones or AE9/11Truth in their private capacity as fallible individuals had any legal obligations in their 9/11 Truth papers to be completely truthful.
At any rate, the sidebar was that I supposedly could be sued for defamation by Dr. Jones and AE911Truth (et al) for having called their work "blatant disinformation." In order for this defamation case to go forward, (factor 2) those plaintiffs would need to prove damages from me having called their work "blatant disinformation."
Did they get fired from their jobs? Did they lose speaking engagements? Was their website attacked by an army of service-denying trolls who championed and propagated Maxwell Bridges message of "NT is blatant disinformation"? Did people unsubscribe and stop donating, and did they reference Bridges message?
There has to be some loss, some measurable quantity of how the alleged defamation reduced their quality of life, and it must be attributable to my statements, else what is the point of defamation litigation? The point is to be made whole for any loss; without loss, there's nothing to be made whole. The judge would throw out the defamation case while calling the plantiffs "winey cry-baby assholes who are misusing the judicial system with frivolous lawsuits."
Funny is that the publicity off of this frivolous and "bound-to-fail" legal defamation circus would bring much awareness to nuclear 9/11. The efforts would "nuclear energize" my lone-nut message about our 9/11 nuking (with Israeli involvement) as well as the other more prescient anti-Zionism positions.
Allah willing, bring it on.
// part 3/3
x52 Reese Erch-Guy : highly aggressive label "disinformation"
2025-11-02
Reese Erch-Guy
Maxwell C. Bridges "As a paralegal, you should know that a lawyer doesn't usually ask questions that they don't know the answer to. Their case is lost if the basis for understanding of the Truth is shot out from underneath them."
You wrote that in response to my challenge that you should talk to victims, etc. That investigative stage of litigation is not the stage referred to by the old expression about not asking questions that you don't know the answer to. That expression applies to trials in front of a jury. Did you really not know that? I mean, come on -- how obvious could it be that when you're investigating something you have to ask questions that you don't know the answer to?
Reese Erch-Guy
Maxwell C. Bridges "they'd use the NT disinformation that AE911Truth was based on to get the whole case thrown out."
You keep using the highly aggressive label "disinformation". For anyone who knows the authors of the NT paper, you thoroughly discredit yourself -- or at least discourage people from wanting to work with you -- without inflammatory rhetoric. Proving what is/was in someone else's mind is a very high bar. You talked about Jones dismissing something or the other. Did you ever try to talk to any of the other co-authors of the paper? What are the chances that all nine of us are "in on it"?
Reese Erch-Guy
Maxwell C. Bridges "What isn't worth it? The additional resources to put this in front of lots of people isn't worth it? Or having your NT life's work discredited in this public-but-not-so-public forum?"
There you go again, being sarcastic. You agreed to have a civil discussion, and I told you I would have zero tolerance for violations.
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : quite easy to ignore and blackhole
2025-11-04
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, We can thank FB that you made this comments, and I was given no notification of their existence. Only ego-exploring all comments do I note branches where I don't have the last word, and therefore might want to respond (given this is a my posting on my FB wall).
You wrote: "You keep using the highly aggressive label 'disinformation'. For anyone who knows the authors of the NT paper, you thoroughly discredit yourself -- or at least discourage people from wanting to work with you -- without inflammatory rhetoric."
I wasn't using the "the highly aggressive label 'disinformation'" until recently, and certainly not ten and fifteen years ago. I'd already honed my usage of honorifics (Mr., Mrs., Dr.) as guiderails to keep me from ad hominem. I really was sincerely seeking a (written) audience with "those in charge", and sent appropriate messages through proper channels (e.g., website messages, email, discussion forums including FB where they might turn up).
But my efforts as a lone nut on this niche 9/11 hobby-horse topic were quite easy to ignore and blackhole. My vanity blog is all about the receipts, me collecting my sincere attempts at having rational discussions and then the run-around and the blackhole treatment received. Worse, who didn't take my earnestness seriously (e.g., didn't see my modus operandus from my blog) and tried to defend NT yet did so poorly and unconvincingly.
As a result and the fact that we're rolling into the quarter century mark, I no longer have the patience to be all lovey-dovey and ass-kissy (beyond my honorifics). I call a spade-a-spade, and nanothermite is disinformation, at the very least in the sense NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction and THEY were required to keep looking for what was the primary mechanism of destruction.
You wrote: "Did you ever try to talk to any of the other co-authors of the paper?"
Yes and no. I went through proper channels. Never made it through the gatekeepers, really. My efforts were appropriately circular filed.
You wrote: "What are the chances that all nine of us are 'in on it'?"
Is that nine (9) include Dr. Jones, or is it the other nine (9) co-authors with Dr. Jones (or Dr. Harrit, or whoever was a speaking celebrity of 9/11 Truth) at the top of the paper? The number isn't disputed, so for the sake of discussion I'm going to assume the number of non-9/11 celebrity co-authors of the NT paper was nine (9).
The nine (9) did admirable work. My super-powers of being naive and trusting is willing to give the benefit of the doubt that these nine (9), whose names I haven't even bothered to learn, were earnest, sincere, good faith, and not at all complicit or aware of the "nanothermite disinformation."
The nine (9) were given the assignments of fleshing out the language, giving plain text descriptions for items listed in tables, and wordsmitthing their significance while incorporating feedback and improvements from lots of different sources.
Let me repeat this Thomas Pynchon quotation: "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
Let me repeat the notion that it only takes a light finger on the wheel to steer a disinformation vehicle away from the truth.
Great! Nine (9) co-authors might have even done wonderful things in actually running experiments on the dust and evaluating the results. Wonderful. More power to them.
Not their fault if the dust samples themselves had chain of custody issues in getting to Dr. Jones; not their fault if Dr. Jones steered them and told them to only look at NT, and with his PhD "blinded-them-with-science" and scope-limited the research venues to "not look outside of NT, because NT is what we found in the dust."
I know what it is like to be a useful cog in the machinery of technical publications. The subject matter experts give you information, and you may or may not have the technical chops to understand its significance beyond making the English clearer and presentable.
Again, you wrote: "What are the chances that all nine of us are 'in on it'?"
Since you put it that way, there actually is a slim chance that all nine of the co-authors were in on the NT disinformation. However, the probability is much greater that none of the nine co-authors were in on it, because all it took was the mis-direction from Dr. Jones to go fully down the wrong path in getting to the primary mechanism of destruction.
This being said, some of the weaknesses in the NT argument and handling that I have pointed out in the past were probably known by more than one of the nine, and weren't fixed.
[For reference, see four sections starting with "Slaughtering the Nano-thermite Sacred Cow" in the following blog article: https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html ]
In a nutshell, Dr. Jones threw a stick down a NT cul-de-sac and told the nine authors to go fetch [e.g., make sense of it] and they did, but this was a misdirection from the nuclear avenue where thought and research needed go from the preponderance of evidence with nuclear fingerprints that NT can't address.
You wrote: "Proving what is/was in someone else's mind is a very high bar. You talked about Jones dismissing something or the other."
Dr. Jones already had a history as a government hitman with his attempts to research Pons and Fleischman's cold fusion. He publicly discredited cold fusion as a dodge so that other countries would dismiss it as well, while he then spent the next decade researching it.
Nuclear physicists Dr. Jones was called again to be a government hitman and take out of consideration any public whiff that 9/11 had nuclear components, which was his flawed "Repudiation of Nukes" work. [References available upon request.]
To fill the void in public understanding, Dr. Jones was given some dust samples with NT in it. Assuming we trust the voracity of the samples, the NT work still doesn't add up to explaining even a fraction of the 9/11 anomalies. [Refer to FEMA/NIST videos.] And Dr. Jones even famously said/wrote: "Something was added to NT, like RDX (to achieve the observed brisance)" and "Something maintained the hot-spots, not just NT", and in both cases did not send his research teams there or propose research assignments for others to find that "something" else.
Yeah. I think Dr. Jones made it to the high bar and we can prove he peddled in disinformation (on behalf of his government). But he had to be clever about it. Based on the blackhole treatment, I point the disinfo finger at David Chandler, Richard Gage, Wayne Coste as well.
P.S. I wrote: ""What isn't worth it? The additional resources to put this in front of lots of people isn't worth it? Or having your NT life's work discredited in this public-but-not-so-public forum?"
You replied: "There you go again, being sarcastic. You agreed to have a civil discussion, and I told you I would have zero tolerance for violations."
So sarcasm and condescension are no-no's, eh? Too bad for you that in my efforts to get us to discuss the terms of our engagement -- like simply where it was to happen --, you couldn't be bothered, and I had to take the initiative. That would have also been the time to detail your expectations. You were astute enough to list ad hominem. But no mention of "sarcasm and condescension" until after the game started. Ergo, they don't apply.
Worse for you is that if you seemingly can't handle "sarcasm and condescension" and are willing to "zero tolerance" them as a lame excuse bail out on this discussion that as a bonus would hit upon the merits and demerits of "your NT life's work", then you will simply cause me (and the latter-day lurker readers) to re-think and increase the number of the nine (9) co-authors who were "in on it."
//
x56 Maxwell C. Bridges : recap what transpired
2025-10-29
To recap what transpired in this discussion (so far).
Under another posting, I wrote: "I still see the blatant disinfo for no-planes, Woodsian-DEW, and nanothermite... These are the secondary narratives that are part of the same psyops."
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy responded on 2025-10-22:
"In what world is nanothermite on the same level as your first two examples of 'blatant disinfo'? Are you up for a proper debate, meaning no ad hominems, no distractions, fair responses to every question? If not, fine, just please don't bait-and-switch on me. Fair warning, I am one of the co-authors of the nanothermite paper."
A proper debate on nanothermite (versus FGNW) with one of the co-authors of the nanothermite paper?!! The mere thought of this "proper debate" had my old white chubby pitching a tent in my pants! He hadn't seen my (very boring and repetitive) blog that documents my evolution in 9/11 thought and my many attempts at such rational discussion. Slowly in conversation, I started dropping blog links as a fair warning that I had done my homework.
My super-powers of being naive and trusting (until given reason not be) just totally overlooked his foreshadowing projection: "just please don't bait-and-switch on me."
I overlooked the seeming disappearance of my comments (e.g., not flagged as relevant and requiring "view all comments" to see).
I overlooked that "mild condescension" got me two strikes, and more foreshadowing of a lame final strike to be used an excuse to bail on the discussion.
A proper debate does consume time, because a sincere participant doesn't just ask for substantiation of claims, they will follow those substantiating links and read/watch & judge for themselves. Like the compilation video of the WTC-2 collapse, or the NIST/FEMA videos from Fresh Kills, or peer-reviewed papers on FGNW. It took time to research, contemplate, and write the claims; it takes time for discussion partners to read the claims and compose a response.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy writes: "I appreciate your cordiality in not demanding immediate responses, but regardless of how cordial you are, it could take me many hours to respond to just to your latest responses."
That's the assignment! That's what a proper debate involves! Research, contemplation, then composing a response. He's behind and playing catch-up, and now is complaining that it is hard.
By 2025-10-28, Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "I'm going to ... then most likely bow out indefinitely, if not forever."
The foreshadowed "bait-and-switch" is now complete!
One of the co-authors of the nanothermite paper thought that his 9/11 celebrity status made him invincible in a nanothermite (versus FGNW) discussion. Did he acknowledge or discredit the issues that undermine the no-nukes work and the NT work of Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth, which led to me bestowing the label "disinformation" on them? No; he did neither.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, co-author of one of the NT papers, decided to bow out indefinitely of this discussion of NT (versus FGNW), in typical "blackhole" fashion.
He demonstrates lots of "cognitive dissonance" in not being able question the weaknesses in the NT theories, or to entertain thoughts (with substantiation and clear analysis) on what it most likely was: exotic nukes.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy can prove the above assessment wrong, and that he really did engage me in good faith.
My eleven part and my four part analyses? He could respond to each of them; a simple "acknowledged" goes a long way, with it being neither agreement nor disagreement. Noting agreement and/or disagreement & why is fundamental to advancing a proper debate, though. He could do all of that work offline, and when finished and saved, he could copy-and-paste his series of responses in their proper place as reply comments under my posting.
The first comment Mr. Reese Erch-Guy ever made to me: "I have a flat forehead from beating my head against the wall. After 20+ years of experience I no longer put significant effort into convincing anybody unless they are in a position to do something about the problem."
This is such wonderful foreshadowing to the flat forehead I received from beating my head against the wall after he bailed on me. I thought that the co-author of one of the NT papers would be in a position to do something about the problem of disinformation in NT premise.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy continued: "I would then qualify my introductory statement by asking, 'If I could convince you that 9/11 was an inside job, what -- if anything -- would you do in response to that new belief?' We can save ourselves a lot of time based on the response -- verbal and nonverbal -- that we get to that question."
Let me try that.
If I could convince Mr. Reese Erch-Guy that NT was a limited hang-out and AE9/11 Truth was infiltrated (to keep public understanding away from nuclear involvement), what -- if anything -- would he do in response to that new belief?
//
x58 Reese Erch-Guy : thousands of hours trying to get justice for 9/11
2025-10-30
Maxwell C. Bridges I have already put in thousands of hours trying to get justice for 9/11.
You are correct in thinking that I did not anticipate the quality or the volume of the work that you have done, and accordingly the time that it would take to properly evaluate it and respond with criticisms or acknowledgments. You are an extreme outlier in that sense. I mean that as a compliment, at least as regards the quality of the material I was able to engage with. I did ask you some questions that you never answered, just as you are essentially accusing me of in the post I'm responding to.
That being said, I do find it interesting that you don't seem to have been able to get what you would consider full-fledged engagement from ANYONE else at the intellectual pinnacle of the 9/11 Truth movement. Even the Pentagon no-impact people have managed to get a lot of engagement. In fact, they took over AE911Truth, despite the fact that that organization's mission was clearly focused on the destruction of the World Trade Center. The fact that they managed to persuade founder Richard Gage to resign just because he said some allegedly controversial things about COVID-19 that were outside the scope of his role at AE911Truth, should shock any fair observer. Even Judy Wood managed to get some engagement, and (along with whoever else) devoted the resources to a qui tam lawsuit against the federal government. I'm not saying that the lack of engagement proves you wrong. I'm just saying that maybe the way you respond when people try to engage and express normal human limits might have something to do with it, as in my case. That's not a "bait and switch", it's just a surprised recognition that your gish gallop would take a lot more time to respond to than I was willing to devote. Add to that the fact that a worthwhile debate would require resources put into making sure lots of people observe it, and I decided it's not worth it. You decided to go forward with the debate in Facebook. The small number of comments speaks for itself.
In the comment that I'm replying to, you repeated your insinuation that somehow I am deleting comments or preventing people from seeing comments or whatever. I have no such power. I don't work for Facebook and I don't know anyone who does. I'm just another sewer rat LIKE YOU, arguing about what the humans in the skyscraper are doing.
I repeat my challenge that you should be talking to victims and seeing if you can put a lawsuit together instead of shouting on a rooftop where people are busy watching the World Series. It will probably go the way of Wood's lawsuit, or that of April Gallop (whose attorney I met and trusted, only to find him bait and switch), but that's the world we live in.
x60 Maxwell C. Bridges : did not anticipate the quality or the volume of the work
2025-10-30
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, part 1/3 you wrote: "I have already put in thousands of hours trying to get justice for 9/11."
And I have already put in thousands of hours trying to get Truth for 9/11.
You wrote: "You are correct in thinking that I did not anticipate the quality or the volume of the work that you have done, and accordingly the time that it would take to properly evaluate it and respond with criticisms or acknowledgments. You are an extreme outlier in that sense. I mean that as a compliment, at least as regards the quality of the material I was able to engage with."
Thank you.
You continued: "I did ask you some questions that you never answered, just as you are essentially accusing me of in the post I'm responding to."
Given that my online habit is to go through my discussion opponent's comments paragraph by paragraph and sentence-by-sentence, quoting them accurately and giving my thoughts, if I missed point-blank questions from you, I'm shocked and angered at myself for having missed them, and apologize.
Please do me the favor of re-posting the questions that you felt that I missed. (Before you do, be sure to expand the FB "see more..." links on my 11 part reply, because quite possibly buried in one of them, I quote your question and then answer it.)
You wrote: "That being said, I do find it interesting that you don't seem to have been able to get what you would consider full-fledged engagement from ANYONE else at the intellectual pinnacle of the 9/11 Truth movement."
Indeed. Thank you for noticing. I call it the "blackhole treatment". It isn't too hard to speculate why this is. If my exotic nuclear premise has validity, the >>figurative<< nuclear fallout on government officials, agencies, and organizations is still possible.
It isn't my goal to nuke AE911Truth. No; I've even many times offered the solution to them to mitigate the fallout. They can change their minds. They can publicly say that they received new analysis that covered a wider swath of anomalous 9/11 evidence and it made them re-think their previous position; apologize that their mistaken beliefs had influenced others; and work to correct the public record and public statements going forward.
You wrote: "Even the Pentagon no-impact people have managed to get a lot of engagement. In fact, they took over AE911Truth, despite the fact that that organization's mission was clearly focused on the destruction of the World Trade Center."
I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes AE911Truth intrigue, but I am very familiar with all of the Pentagon no-impact premises (and people). I've evaluated it and support it, and even provided physics-based arguments to help it, but the Pentagon isn't my 9/11 hobby-horse.
I don't have any problems with allowing AE911Truth's mission to shift from being focused on the destruction of the WTC to allow Pentagon research. AE911Truth was acting like a gatekeeper to prevent Pentagon discussions.
From my perspective, what is worse for AE911Truth -- proving the gatekeeping accusation -- is that AE9Truth hasn't fulfilled its mission that was "focused on the destruction of the World Trade Center." Specifically, where is their individual work that explains WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6? My recollection is that any verbiage devoted to these is weak and incomplete.
You wrote: "The fact that they managed to persuade founder Richard Gage to resign just because he said some allegedly controversial things about COVID-19 that were outside the scope of his role at AE911Truth, should shock any fair observer."
Actually, it didn't shock me. To a certain degree, it proved that AE911Truth was infiltrated and controlled. They didn't want AE911Truth's membership "infected" with truths different from OCT (the official conspiracy theory, e.g., Wuhan bats).
// part 1/3
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, part 2/3 You wrote: "Even Judy Wood managed to get some engagement, and (along with whoever else) devoted the resources to a qui tam lawsuit against the federal government."
What was funny about that FAQ engagement with Dr. Judy Wood's work was how stupid the attempted debunking efforts were. Don't get me wrong; Dr. Wood's work can be debunked. She dropped lots of dangling innuendo, connected no dots, drew no conclusions, and didn't shitty research into both DEW and nukes. The problem with AE911Truth's FAQ was that they didn't quote from her work, they offered nothing that proved they even read her work, and then they spent 40% of the total word-count plugging NT.
IMHO, AE9/11Truth did not legitimately consider Dr. Wood's work and perform the requisite analysis (leading to debunking conclusions). Why? It had many nuggets of truth that needed to be rescued and addressed, only NT couldn't. When considering AE9/11Truth's FAQ that tries to debunk nuclear involvement, also not a legitimate effort framing things as a "nuclear blast", cherry-picking from Mr. Jeff Prager's work in the footnotes, and no consideration of exotic nukes.
You wrote: "I'm not saying that the lack of engagement proves you wrong."
To be clear, the lack of engagement represents a tried and true disinformationalist's technique when the discussion is heading outside the parameters of acceptable debate.
You wrote: "I'm just saying that maybe the way you respond when people try to engage and express normal human limits might have something to do with it, as in my case."
You lamented early on about your flat forehead from beating your head against the wall regarding convincing others (9/11) Truth. As proven by my blog, I've sincerely been there and done that.
The only reason I don't have a flat forehead is that I learned to save my work in a manner that I can search, data mine, and leverage so that I don't have to ride unproductive (disinfo) carousel spins to completion. The thing is, anybody of any salt in the 9/11 Truth movement has something similar, even if it is just a text file with their goto URLs to substantiate their NT/Woodsian-DEW position that they'll plop into a discussion with the air of "debunk this." They are surprised when I do that in my reply, because I'd ridden that carousel before and saved my work precisely so it could be re-used in situations like this. I advanced the discussion to the next level, and they are unprepared with their canned-rebuttal.
You, however, are a special case, because you are well familiar with 9/11 and being a co-author of the NT work have extra powers in debate. Even the name of your online batman when spoken allowed -- Mr. Reese Erch-Guy --, suggests more from you and your ability to handle reading a research paper on my blog.
You wrote: "That's not a 'bait and switch',..."
You were the one who asked for a debate. Now you're the one who is not debating what was important -- like the issues that NT has, that Dr. Jones has, or my premise has.
You were the one who thought that I'd be the one to cut-and-run and "bait-and-switch" you out of the discussion you were dying to have and supposedly easily win.
You wrote: "it's just a surprised recognition that your gish gallop would take a lot more time to respond to than I was willing to devote."
If you call my efforts "gish gallop" when they were quoting and addressing sentence-by-sentence your comment(s), then that in turn makes your comment(s) "gish gallop" as well, I suppose, and we cancel each other out.
I'll not be faulted for substantiating my statements, or for giving you fair warning with links to my blog that I might have already mulled over some 9/11 point several times already.
// part 2/3
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, part 3/3 You wrote: "Add to that the fact that a worthwhile debate would require resources put into making sure lots of people observe it, ...
You're making very lame excuses.
Just like most interviews are not conducted live but are pre-recorded (and edited) and played (or posted) later, this discussion in Facebook is going to eventually find a place on my blog in "FGNW Discussions Volume Number 6."
You, too, are welcome to save this discussion and use it as the basis for some greater work that you'll get published on AE911Truth. That later publication will be how you apply more resources into it that makes sure lots of people see it.
It really isn't in either of our best interests to have "lots of people observe it" WHILE we are having it, because they might interject with distracting nonsense (like Mr. Ray Kraaijenhagen has already).
This is why is behooves you to take this seriously and legitimately now, when it is public by not so damn public that everyone and agents and bots distract from where our NT versus FGNW needs to go.
You continued: "... and I decided it's not worth it."
What isn't worth it? The additional resources to put this in front of lots of people isn't worth it? Or having your NT life's work discredited in this public-but-not-so-public forum?
You wrote: "You decided to go forward with the debate in Facebook."
Because you decided to be a weasel by not providing any alternative venue (that you might control), were happy in the private realm of Messenger for our NT versus FGNW debate that needed to b public, and were trying to pre-qualify the engagement.
You wrote: "The small number of comments speaks for itself."
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I'm a lone nut with a hobby-horse premise (and few FB followers). Neither one of us as individuals is well served in a multi-front engagement, and having our deep and weighty conversation watered down by distractions.
You wrote: "In the comment that I'm replying to, you repeated your insinuation that somehow I am deleting comments or preventing people from seeing comments or whatever. I have no such power. I don't work for Facebook and I don't know anyone who does. I'm just another sewer rat LIKE YOU, arguing about what the humans in the skyscraper are doing."
I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of deleting comments. I was not. Even when I was noticing them go missing, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. As discovered, FB AI was the culprit and in deciding what was "relevant." What these improved AI algorithms illustrate is that my 9/11 hobby-horse triggers them into action, into what should be suppressed and downplayed.
You wrote: "I repeat my challenge that you should be talking to victims and seeing if you can put a lawsuit together instead of shouting on a rooftop where people are busy watching the World Series. It will probably go the way of Wood's lawsuit, or that of April Gallop (whose attorney I met and trusted, only to find him bait and switch), but that's the world we live in."
As a paralegal, you should know that a lawyer doesn't usually ask questions that they don't know the answer to. Their case is lost if the basis for understanding of the Truth is shot out from underneath them.
It isn't my role to take anybody to court.
My role is to provide truth and information to those who do take 9/11 to court so they don't lose the case over stupid things. For instance, imagine the lawyer making the case for 9/11 insider shit and saying they "planted NT". But then imagine the other side going through all of the issues with NT (maybe even copied from my blog) and proving NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction (maybe even with some previously unreleased official reports). Boom, they'd use the NT disinformation that AE911Truth was based on to get the whole case thrown out.
// part 3/3
x62 Reese Erch-Guy : a very sadly small audience
2025-10-30
It looks like we have a very sadly small audience
x64 Maxwell C. Bridges : lots of time later to build up the audience
2025-10-30
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, There is still lots of time later to build up the audience, but now really isn't that time.
Now is the time for you and I to have this NT versus FGNW discussion, and take it where it needs to go.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Neither one of us as individuals is well served in a multi-front engagement, and having our deep and weighty conversation watered down by distractions.
//
x66 Maxwell C. Bridges : ALLOW ME TO RESET THIS DISCUSSION
2025-10-30
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, ALLOW ME TO RESET THIS DISCUSSION and give you a much smaller initial focus that would be well within your human limitations.
You accused me of "gish galloping" and flooding you with irrelevant information. I maintain that it was relevant, but your point about its potential to overwhelm a discussion opponent is well taken.
THEREFORE, you do >>NOT<< need to respond to any of my multi-part comments above, but for shits-and-giggles you can if you want. I did put some effort into them, and you might learn something.
Instead CONSIDER THIS A RESET in terms of what is expected of you, a much narrower scope.
I request that you watch just two videos and read only one of my blog postings, and have this serve as the starting point for further engagement.
+++
The first video isn't very long (<15 minutes). If you followed any links from above, you might have already seen it. This is the "9 11 1st Tower Collapse WTC2 Compilation Raw Footage".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfphCLtUUI
The companion piece to this video is my blog posting "Exotika 911 Blackhole #4", which you might have already skimmed. It references the above video. It has timestamps and screen shots from the above video to help you see for yourself the anomalies in question.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
Please start reading the WTC-4 the article, and start watching the video where the article calls it out.
You may find yourself going between the paused video and my article on WTC-4, so you are aware of the anomaly to be on the lookout for.
Let this be the starting point. Use my article as a target, find its weaknesses. But also have the integrity to admit, "AE911Truth was supposed to discuss WTC-4, never really did, and this analysis does."
The SECOND video was also previously posted above, but is repeated here to make sure that you watch some of it, just the indicated time stamps.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
This video is very long, but you don't have to watch the whole thing. Here are six representative timestamps that we can use to focus our discussion.
>>> 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. [FGNW's instant volume heating explains a gash along 1/3 or more of the length of a box column and through the spandrel (thicker) area. The wall assembly was volume heated and made pliable such that something was able to gouge it. The edges of the gash wilted inwards.]
>>> 1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly. ["Steel Doobies:" the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly are wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the spandrels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.]
>>> 1:27:00 Column smoothly bent into a C-shape and smoothly bent steel. In the non-nuclear real-world, many minutes in a blast furnace is normally required to heat structural steel beams sufficiently end-to-end in order to get it to bend.
>>> 1:39:00 and 1:57:00 Radiation affecting the video camera.
++++
When your watching the NIST video, you need to be asking:
(1) where and how was NT position to achieve these artifacts?
(2) Would FGNW that emit 80% of their nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons come closer to explaining the anomalous pieces of evidences, AS WELL AS the video glitches?
I'm not going to convince you of anything. You're going to look at 9/11 from the lenses of WTC-4 and from anomalous evidence -- seeded with peer-reviewed scientific papers on FGNW by Dr. Andre Gsponer --, and you're going to convince yourself that NT is wrong (can't logically explain #1) and FGNW is right as the primary mechanisms of destruction for WTC-4. And then you'll backward extrapolate this truth to the entire WTC complex.
//
x68 Reese Erch-Guy : molten metal coming out of the south tower
2025-11-01
Maxwell C. Bridges I asked you about the molten metal coming out of the south tower -- with a link. I alluded to the steel pieces changing direction in midair, documented by David Chandler. If you responded to that I haven't been able to find it in what I have repeatedly told you is an awkward format for a debate. So apparently, instead of you offering your account for what seems to be undisputed evidence, you simply ignore it and then asked me to deal with another body of evidence that you think is important. Certainly, those pieces of evidence are far less voluminous than yours. I also asked you the mirror-image question that you just asked me about the C-shaped steel. How would a nuclear weapon create that effect anymore than a conventional explosive would do so?
There is something about the way you have approached this debate in the past and all the way up to the present, that has not gotten you the debate or the number of supporters you would like. What do you think is the reason for that?
x70 Maxwell C. Bridges : addressed any and all open questions
2025-11-02
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, you wrote: "I asked you about the molten metal coming out of the south tower -- with a link. I alluded to the steel pieces changing direction in midair, documented by David Chandler. If you responded to that I haven't been able to find it in what I have repeatedly told you is an awkward format for a debate."
And I aswered you THREE TIMES already.
[1] Very first top-level comment from you [2025-10-26] starting with "Thank you laying all that out." The fourth comment in that thread from you had a video with molten metal. The fifth comment from me [2025-10-26] addressing your question begins: "You are jumping to conclusions and trying to get the evidence to match your pre-ordained nanothermite theory." Q.E.D.
[2] In my eleven part reply [2025-20-27] that were top-level comments, "Reply 9/11" also addressed your question of molten metal. Q.E.D.
[3] A reply comment [2025-10-30] "Part 1/3" also pointed out that I believed I had addressed any and all open questions. If I had not, you were asked to please re-post the question.
Space allowing, below the \\\\\\\\\\ in this comment, I'll re-post the relevant comments.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "So apparently, instead of you offering your account for what seems to be undisputed evidence, you simply ignore it..."
As will be easily proven below, I did not ignore it and answered it in good faith. In fact, it has more the appearance of you ignoring my three different replies, but I'm not going to go there, given that FB algorithms is messing with both of us with its "relevant comments" and "all comments."
Even as I went searching in the comments for "Reply 9/11", I see that it stops at "Reply 8/11" lopping off three parts of my comment.
You continued: "... and then asked me to deal with another body of evidence that you think is important."
Given both your complaints at the amount of material and verbiage that I provide you, and given that you were already in the process of mentally checking out of this discussion, I felt it prudent to offer "baby-steps" by limiting the scope of the first part of our debate to WTC-4, simply two videos and one blog article.
You continued: "Certainly, those pieces of evidence are far less voluminous than yours."
While true, it is also true that I addressed your pieces of evidence. See \\\\\\\\\\ below.
You continued: "I also asked you the mirror-image question that you just asked me about the C-shaped steel. How would a nuclear weapon create that effect anymore than a conventional explosive would do so?"
Again, it was answered when it was first brought up. See \\\\\\\\\\ below.
\\\\\\\\\\
2025-10-26
Reese Erch-Guy
Maxwell C. Bridges This video clearly proves that some form of thermite reaction was involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Molten aluminum does not glow in bright daylight. The droplets are yellow-hot, not even just orange, when they first leave the source.
The video also proves that the thermite reaction was not just used with regard to blast pressure, but also with regard to softening or melting of the structural steel. Whatever exactly is "going off" in this video, I cannot imagine an explanation consistent with a nuclear reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg&list=PL8ssO4mFmnLMeYmdE7kK_MF0KUg42x_Vp&index=12
9/11: Stabilized South Tower Molten Metal (by J.Keogh)
2025-10-26
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, You are jumping to conclusions and trying to get the evidence to match your pre-ordained nanothermite theory. The actual evidence in the video is that something excessively hot was involved, a temperature that fires from jet fuel and office furnishings could not reach. Something else was involved.
You wrote: "... I cannot imagine an explanation consistent with a nuclear reaction."
Let me assist you in overcoming your failure of imagination. A point you may have missed in my multi-reply is that the tandem nuclear implementation was not 100% perfect. My proposed multiple FGNW did exhibit some "nuclear fizzle", which is a technical term that you can Google along with "Fukushima" and "Chernobyl."
[Wild-ass speculation] If we assume only nuclear involvement, the impacting plane could have negatively affected the placement and functionality of one or more devices at or near that level causing it or them to, say, "initiate" a nuclear process but not fulfill its nuclear yield; in fact, it could have been fouled and stuck in an incomplete fission process. A fouled nuclear device could very well sit and smolder and radiate excessive heat (and radiation badness), causing trapped survivors to jump from windows and the very molten metals dripping out the windows depicted in your video.
Of course, I'd be a fool to argue the mutual exclusivity of any mechanism of destruction. It is no skin off of my nose to allow for NT involvement, which this molten metal dripping, combined with the angled cut of support beams at the base, might just substantiate.
You'll recall that early on I made a couple of adjustments to the framing of our discussion, albeit with lots of leeway. This discussion isn't about "involvement," because I can readily concede the involvement of even kitchen sinks (literally). This discussion is about the >>PRIMARY<< mechanism of destruction, where NT comes up short.
[mcb snip]
// mcb
2025-10-27
Maxwell C. Bridges
Reply 9/11: Mr. Reese Erch-Guy wrote: "There's also the molten metal running down the channel rails etc. Were there micro-third-and-a-half-generation nukes that did not exert much blast force but instead only caused structural steel to melt and run "like lava from a volcano"?"
A huge false assumption that Mr. Reese Erch-Guy makes is that 9/11 was a perfectly executed operation. It wasn't. Examples include WTC-7 not falling when the other buildings fell, WTC-2 being destroyed before WTC-1 (because firefighters were able to assess what it would take to get WTC-2 under control).
The problem with using "micro-third-and-a-half-generation nukes" (micro-nukes, mini-nukes) in tandem is that the spherical emission of neutrons will foul neighboring devices, causing nuclear fizzle. FGNW devices emit their neutrons in a targeted fashion. Therefore, FGNW can be used in tandem if all devices aim their emissions away from the others, and the chances of nuclear fizzle diminish.
Nuclear fizzle is anything short of the expected nuclear yield: from nothing, to devices smoldering like a Chernobyl, to devices exhibited some level of expected yield (e.g., heat) but not the full yield.
The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is one example of where maybe some FGNW got fouled and exhibited nuclear fizzle.
There are two instances that I'm aware where someone used the quote: "the molten metal running down the channel rails."
The first reference is what firemen observed underneath the towers. Yes, the normal output of a FGNW could have caused some of this, but more likely some FGNW got fouled, exhibited nuclear fizzle, and was smoldering like a Chernobyl meltdown under the rubble.
The second reference is what 9/11 Truthers call the liquid metal seen running down the rails and dripping out of the towers near the impact levels before the collapse. The impacting airplane could have caused a pre-mature ignition, misfire, and nuclear fizzle with one or more FGNW at or near that level. In fact, a smoldering FGNW near the impact level (and near the core) could have been the cause of the human feeling the need to jump rather than wait at the windows.
// mcb
x72 Maxwell C. Bridges : cognitive dissonance big-time kicks in with these 9/11 Truthers
2025-11-02
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, you wrote: "There is something about the way you have approached this debate in the past and all the way up to the present, that has not gotten you the debate or the number of supporters you would like. What do you think is the reason for that?"
9/11 Truthers fancy themselves to be objective thinkers. They easily saw through the lies of the 9/11 primary narrative of the psyops, the official conspiracy theory (OCT) that amounts to "no extra energy was added to WTC destruction besides airplane impacts and jet fuel."
The government was prepared in this psyops with at least three parallel disinfo secondary narratives: (1) deep underground nukes, (2) Woodsian-DEW, and (3) Nanothermite. The first two were deliberately argued poorly in a manner that was contrary to observation. Why? Because the two together (nuclear-DEW) was closer to the truth. So, make their defense outlandish so that they get discredited, and all of their evidence swept off the table in the process. NT was the fallback, concensus secondary 9/11 narrative.
At any rate, the well-meaning 9/11 Truthers were "blinded-by-science" and deferred authority to those having PhD's as long as they weren't OCT. Most were a bit science-challenged and did not have the chops to, say, research nukes and DEW on their own to then discover the major OMISSIONS of both Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Wood in their works.
When I come later and say "here's where the good doctors got it wrong", cognitive dissonance big-time kicks in with these 9/11 Truthers. "I was objective enough to seen beyond the primary narrative, and to see that the nukers and DEWers were seeded disinformation. Therefore, what remains (NT) must be true, and telling me now NT is wrong and not the primary mechanism of destruction is hurting my brain. STFU. Go away. You don't have a PhD."
The big issue is not that, say, David Chandler, Richard Gage, AE9/11Truth, etc. are not on board with my exotic nukes FGNW. In fact, I earnestly approached them and asked for assistance in disproving my nuclear notions.
No, the big issue with those influencers of 9/11 Truth is that they couldn't be bothered even to discuss it. Blackhole treatment, again and again.
If we were charitable and say they read my (earlier) works, they knew FGNW couldn't be proven wrong, that FGNW addressed more anomalous evidence than NT, and that NT wasn't the primary.
What would disproving NT mean to the NT theory and to those who championed it?
Whereas I would be happy if those 9/11 celebrity influencers publicly apologized for NT and made efforts to promote the (new and improved) FGNW theory, there are many who would not be happy. Lots of reputations would get dinged, and it might even implode an organization or two (e.g., AE9/11Truth). Let's remember that the governments of the USA and Is*re*al from the beginning didn't want this nuclear revelation coming to light, and even created several clever secondary narratives to distract the public. Parallels with Epstein, to keep the 9/11 nuclear secret, the extent of the blackmail runs deep and can have life-and-death consequences.
To repeat your comment: "There is something about the way you have approached this debate in the past and all the way up to the present, that has not gotten you the debate or the number of supporters you would like."
My approach has been to dive into known disinformation works (includes all those from government agencies and conspiracy rabbit-holes) and rescue nuggets of truth while flagging the disinfo nuggets. I have collected and organized these nuggets into something that more easily supports my FGNW premise than the theories they were mined from. When gatekeepers tried to brush me aside with "well, you don't have a Prima Facie Case", I wrote up one for their review. When urged to submit an article to, say, Journal on 9/11 Truth, I did that, too, and after some stupid runarounds and a few version, it rejected for lame reasons (from a committee whose members cut their 9/11 teeth on NT and had a vested interest in maintaining this fiction.)
In any other realm (outside of politics or health care), my approach would be considered reasonable, rational, scientific, and even somewhat thorough: a really good basis for others (in the 9/11 Truth Movement) to build on (or legitimately debunk).
But mine is the themes that exposes lots of lies, dings lots of reputations, and can still have figurative nuclear fallout on lots of institutions.
//
x74 Maxwell C. Bridges : repeating and paraphrasing desires for our discussion
2025-11-02
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, Because FB notifications are for shit, they can't be relied upon to take you to all new comments (individually), and it can't be relied upon to show all of the comments under a posting or in a thread, I'll be repeating and paraphrasing what I wrote and what my desires are for our discussion.
In a nutshell, I responded timely and thoroughly to your comments, paraphrah-by-paragraph and sometimes sentence-by-sentence. I answered your questions as I came upon them. Many are buried in a thread that FB has already compressed into "previous comments", some are in various parts of my eleven part response that get truncated (9 through 11 MIA but might appear next time I hunt for them from a fresh instance of the FB discussion.)
At any rate, your anger is justified that AI algorithms didn't show you the multi-part responses in all of the threads where we had engagement. However, I am not responsible for giving you the false impression that I was evading your points. I have not been evading your questions, and it would be against my better interests to play such games, because I'm trying to get Truth legitimately and fairly, even if it knocks my 9/11 hobby-horse out from underneath me.
Going forward, we'll both need to be more cautious in accusing the other of not discussing in good faith.
++++++++
I believe that I answered your open questions in the threads where they came up, and then repeated.
You accused me of "gish galloping" and flooding you with irrelevant information. I maintain that it was relevant, but your point about its potential to overwhelm a discussion opponent is well taken.
Hence my proposal to RESET THIS DISCUSSION and give you a much smaller initial focus that would be well within your human limitations.
I request that you read one blog posing on WTC-4 and watch just two videos (one a companion video to the blog posting), and that we have this serve as the starting point for further engagement. [Although if you continue existing threads like where your questions came up, I'll respoond there.]
+++
The first video isn't very long (<15 minutes). If you followed any links from above, you might have already seen it. This is the "9 11 1st Tower Collapse WTC2 Compilation Raw Footage".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfphCLtUUI
The companion piece to this video is my blog posting "Exotika 911 Blackhole #4", which you might have already skimmed. It references the above video. It has timestamps and screen shots from the above video to help you see for yourself the anomalies in question.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
Please start reading the WTC-4 the article, and start watching the video where the article calls it out.
You may find yourself going between the paused video and my article on WTC-4, so you are aware of the anomaly to be on the lookout for.
Let this be the starting point. Use my article as a target, find its weaknesses. But also have the integrity to admit, "AE911Truth was supposed to discuss WTC-4, never really did, and this analysis does."
The SECOND video was also previously posted above, but is repeated here to make sure that you watch some of it, just the indicated time stamps.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
This video is very long, but you don't have to watch the whole thing. Here are six representative timestamps that we can use to focus our discussion.
>>> 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. [FGNW's instant volume heating explains a gash along 1/3 or more of the length of a box column and through the spandrel (thicker) area. The wall assembly was volume heated and made pliable such that something was able to gouge it. The edges of the gash wilted inwards.]
>>> 1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly. ["Steel Doobies:" the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly are wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the spandrels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.]
>>> 1:27:00 Column smoothly bent into a C-shape and smoothly bent steel. In the non-nuclear real-world, many minutes in a blast furnace is normally required to heat structural steel beams sufficiently end-to-end in order to get it to bend.
>>> 1:39:00 and 1:57:00 Radiation affecting the video camera.
++++
When you're watching the NIST video, you need to be asking:
(1) where and how was NT position to achieve these artifacts?
(2) Would FGNW that emit 80% of their nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons come closer to explaining the anomalous pieces of evidences, AS WELL AS the video glitches?
I'm not going to convince you of anything. You're going to look at 9/11 from the lenses of WTC-4 and from anomalous evidence -- seeded with peer-reviewed scientific papers on FGNW by Dr. Andre Gsponer --, and you're going to convince yourself that NT is wrong (can't logically explain #1) and FGNW is right as the primary mechanisms of destruction for WTC-4. And then you'll backward extrapolate this truth to the entire WTC complex.
//
x76 Reese Erch-Guy : gash in girder caused by girder landing on a corner
2025-11-02
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02okNHiFrqDWedgwdRhPieHEjaw8hmQePbqAktfwSYVSVitj63Ju1FJ6fToFRNEAUbl
I looked at the Fresnosean379 video that you sent me privately (and maybe otherwise; I haven't had time to look properly; but please keep everything here public so that everything I say will be at least available to others besides you). You alluded to a time signature corresponding roughly to the photo I have posted here. I think you cited 28:51 while this is from just four seconds later at 28:55.
I don't see why the gash in that girder couldn't have been caused by the girder happening to land on the corner of a steel column that was still standing. I don't see how the gash indicates anything about the overall mechanism of destruction. Can you say anything to elucidate that?
x78 Maxwell C. Bridges : The analogy is a full-sized Hershey's chocolate bar
2025-11-03
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, you wrote: "I looked at the Fresnosean379 video that you sent me... You alluded to a time signature corresponding roughly to the photo I have posted here. I think you cited 28:51 while this is from just four seconds later at 28:55."
The timestamp 28:51 is when the gash anomaly is first filmed, and goes until at least 30:55.
The gash goes along one face of a hollow box column and also through a spandrel the FEMA guy measured at 1" (and the box column sides were probably also 1"). In other words, the gash at one point was cutting through 2" of metal like a hot knife through butter.
You wrote: "I don't see why the gash in that girder couldn't have been caused by the girder happening to land on the corner of a steel column that was still standing."
Your explanation, stated another way, is that some sharp, sturdy girder had a portion sticking out like a hook to snag on falling wall assemblies. A wall assembly fragment (a different anomaly to study) fell and had such kinetic energy upon hitting the girder snag that it cut a gash into a 1" face of hollow box column including cutting through an additional 1" of spandrel.
Start with the OCT premise of no extra energy added. Then theoretically the wall assembly is cold. When you do the math on the physics (over-driven case), a full wall assembly falling from a great height onto a "snagging" girder has insufficient kinetic energy to pierce the 1" metal face of a box column. The energy required to cut a lengthy gash into it is huge, and not physics compliant with the available energy. Meaning, the path of least resistance for a (cold) falling wall assembly after striking the "snagging" girder is (a) to damage the snag and (B) to divert its falling trajectory to the side into "least resistance" space. To cut a gash through 1/3 of the length of the box column face including through the spandrel area, that is clearly through the path of MAXIMUM RESISTANCE (for a cold wall assembly). In metal shops, they'd use either special saws or welding equipment (or a blast furnace), and it wouldn't be instantaneous that the gash is cut.
But if the box column and its spandrel were not cold, but instead if they were volume heated, then those 1"-2" sheets of metal would be soft and pliable, and susceptible to piercing and gash cutting with comparatively less kinetic energy. The gash could have been cut near its original location in the tower (still high up), and wouldn't necessarily have to fall from a great height onto the girder snag (but a great height isn't ruled out).
The analogy is a full-sized Hershey's chocolate bar. Taken from the freezer, sometimes you cannot even break it at its marked break lines. This is the expectation from OCT. However, that same Hershey's chocolate bar after being placed in a hot car until before it melts into a liquid, and the once rigid chocolate bar will be completely "floppy" (and messy), and a plastic knife could easily cut it and put gashes into it.
Here is a further anomaly to note in the video. The edges of the gash in the box column were "concave and pushed in." Meaning after the gash was cut and the wall assembly finally rested on the ground, gravity acted on the still "floppy" volume-heated metal to pull those gash edges inward.
You wrote: "I don't see how the gash indicates anything about the overall mechanism of destruction. Can you say anything to elucidate that?"
We'll ignore the OCT theory, because it's too deceitful to admit any extra energy was added (after the plane impacts and fires fueled by jet fuel and office furnishings.)
Your NT theory does add energy. Assuming it was used, where was the NT positioned such that its output could near instantly volume heat a box column's face and its spandrel to allow for this gashing anomaly? How much would be required to turn the 1" faces of the box column into a "soft Hershey chocolate bar"? [These questions were posed to Wayne Coste and others, only to have them and the FEMA video be "blackhole" ignored.]
Returning to the evidence in the video (and mentioned above as a separate anomaly), it wasn't a full wall assembly (over-driven case) of three box columns connected by the spandrels. No, the spandrels were "ripped" separating this box column from the other box columns of its wall assembly. The energy required to rip the 1" think metal of the spandrel is not trivial, particularly if it is assumed to be cold. (Further, one box column falling has less kinetic energy that the over-driven case of a three box columns of an intact wall assembly.)
If NT were used, where was NT positioned to allow for this tearing of the spandrels, and why? How much would be required? Hint: Don't spend a lot of time on this. Neither Dr. Steven Jones nor AE9/11Truth asked these questions of NT to explain the anomalous evidence (if they saw the video).
The simpler explanation is multiple FGNW that sent highly energetic neutrons through this wall assembly (after passing through many floors of concrete and office furnishing) and volume-heated its metal >>instantly<< to a point where significantly less energy is required to rip three spandrels or allow a gash to be cut through the box column face >>and<< its spandrel.
Hopefully after the above explanation, you'll recognize that the gash does indicate something significant about the overall mechanism of destruction, which added sufficient energy such that it could volume heat instantly large pieces of metal (3 stories) to be pliable and allow "Hershey chocolate melty effects."
//
x80 Reese Erch-Guy : To soften structural steel you'd need to raise it hundreds of degree C
2025-11-03
Maxwell C. Bridges "Neutrons don't "heat" steel effectively unless the flux is reactor- or weapon-grade.
To soften structural steel you'd need to raise it hundreds of degree C. The energy to heat just 1,000 kg of steel by ~575 K is ~3×10⸠J. A very strong radioisotopic neutron source like Cf-252 emits ~2.3×10¹² n/s per gram. Even if every neutron’s ~2 MeV were deposited (it isn’t), that’s ~0.7 W per gram of source—orders of magnitude too small to heat large columns. You’d need absurd, impossible quantities of such source material. Reactors or nuclear explosions, not portable sources, are what produce fluxes that both heat and activate bulk metal."
You have referred to your theory as a nuclear weapons theory -- whether fourth-generation or some other number -- implying that there was some "weapon-grade" source of both blast and radioactivity. Have you done any of the math along the lines of this ChatGPT response? Remember that you have posited an additional energy sink besides the steel columns themselves: "many floors of concrete and office furnishing".
x82 Maxwell C. Bridges : correct for room temperature energetic neutrons
2025-11-03
Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr Reese Erch-Guy, correct your chatGPT answer was for room temperature energetic neutrons. But FGNW of my variety expel 80% of the yield as highly energetic neutrons from a high energy fusion reaction. It isn't neutrons colliding inside of the molecular structure of things. It is the energy that gets shucked off from going through. Typically that energy takes the form of heat, but instantly and throughout the volume of the materials passed through. Think trapped water molecules in concrete instantly turning into high temperature steam whose expanding volumetric pressure fractures and dustifies it, which is an anomaly observed in the earliest and all stages of its demolition.
//
x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : 'weapon-grade' source of both blast and radioactivity
2025-11-03
Dear Mr Reese Erch-Guy, Part 1/2 You wrote: "You have referred to your theory as a nuclear weapons theory -- whether fourth-generation or some other number -- implying that there was some 'weapon-grade' source of both blast and radioactivity."
Not completely true.
First of all, my FGNW were designed to have 80%+ of their nuclear yield as the release of highly energetic neutrons. The other 20% of the tactical yield would have been the heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. [Wild-ass bat-shit-crazy speculation] The squibs seen bursting out of the center windows of floors that were 10-20 stories BELOW the dustified wave of debris were the mitigated & directed blast waves of FGNW mounted on the outside walls of the inner core, four devices per detonation level. The torched vehicles along the street and in the line-of-sight parking lots were a result of EMP slipping out of window slits.
Secondly, while these FGNW do have a radiation signature, the absence of a significant (and uncontrollable traditional nuclear) blast wave and the manner in which the output could be aimed and directed (aimed upwards, mostly within the confines of the outer wall assemblies) meant that really bad radioactivity isn't going to be spread throughout the city in health-impacting quantities.
Thirdly, the very same NIST/FEMA video that is the basis for this thread has several timestamped instances that prove radioactivity was present, weeks after the event at Fresh Kills scrapyard. Let me set the scene. The NIST/FEMA government scientist had a reliable, high-quality video camera and faithfully documented his observations on selected and saved pieces of WTC destruction. Unbeknownst to him at the time of filming, sometimes radioactivity leaching off of debris would cause the video portion (not the audio) of his camera to glitch out. Kind of embarrassing and nuclear-telling on playback, probably resulting in those videos not being released to the public for years [and this is assuming nothing was edited out.]
You wrote: "Have you done any of the math along the lines of this ChatGPT response?"
I've interacted with ChatGPT, but not along the lines of the math. AI is only as good as its models, and sometimes those models are years of corporate media propaganda put out by many sources that AI assumes to be true. I found that I had to reset AI assumptions when forming my requests.
At this point in time, public AI isn't using private & secret databases from nuclear programs in creating its models used to answer public queries on topics of nuclear weapons. Not saying it wouldn't be interesting, but it wouldn't be gating either.
You wrote: "To soften structural steel you’d need to raise it hundreds of degree C. The energy to heat just 1,000 kg of steel by ~575 K is ~3×10⸠J."
Exactly.
A really big number.
The physical evidence from the video is showing us that something with at least that amount of energy to spare was at play during the WTC destruction.
I admit that I'm being a bit of a wimp here by saying: Neither I nor AI need to go into the details of the math, because ballpark estimates already prove it is in the range of what assumed nuclear devices can produce. Neither I nor AI will have access to the secret online database catalog of available exotic nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the USA (and Is*re*al) to match the calculated math to be within the published and advertised output of a serial numbered device, with model variations depending on output needs and many different installation configurations.
Those who champion WTC-7 often repeat themselves: "It should be sufficient to recognize the 100 feet of gravitational acceleration in WTC-7's demise to conclude energy was added, and therefore the OCT is wrong."
In a similar manner, I say: It should be sufficient to recognize the energy sink of WTC pulverization at near gravitational acceleration through its path of greatest resistance while ejecting heavy pieces of building structure laterally, to recognize that Uranium and its decay elements reported in two separate reports on the dust as fingerprints of fission, to recognize the scope-limited tritium report as fingerprints of fusion, to recognize the duration of under-rubble hot-spots as fingerprints of nuclear fizzle,... and that all of these add up to nuclear involvement. Ironically, this gets confirmed by the blackhole treatment and sometimes exposes where infiltration and steering of 9/11 Truth occurred.
You wrote: "Remember that you have posited an additional energy sink besides the steel columns themselves: 'many floors of concrete and office furnishing.'"
Because that's not completely what I stated, let me refine this description further. The output cone of highly energetic neutrons were emitted from a device installed on the outer wall of the inner core. The cone was aimed upwards and directed away from the inner core. We can speculate the angle of the cone with maximum yield. In fact, we could even contemplate some representative vectors from that cone.
Assuming straight up is 90 degrees, then vector 1 from one FGNW cone could be arbitrarily chosen as 88 degrees, and say this is the edge of the cone. All of the neutrons in this vector would pass through many steel floor pans, steel trusses, concrete, office furnishings, and the falling dustified content from the FGNW that ignited 20 stories above and might be in its path. This 88 degree angle would conveniently miss the installation of the upper FGNW.
Let's arbitrarily chose vector 2 from the cone to be 60 degrees, and maybe this represents the other edge of the cone (meaning output cone angle of only 30 degrees). The neutrons from this vector also pass through many floors and then vector through a wall assembly, say, 20 stories above the detonation point. Let's now contemplate a continuous range of vectors from, say, 60 degrees to 63 degrees. They do the same things as vector 2 in going through many floors before eventually hitting a wall assembly 20 stories above, except they each hit locations higher on that same wall assembly, and some pass through more floors on their way to the wall assembly, and all together they effect volume heating of the wall assembly.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2 You wrote (repeated): "To soften structural steel you'd need to raise it hundreds of degree C. The energy to heat just 1,000 kg of steel by ~575 K is ~3×10⸠J."
In another thread, you were talking about your nine (9) non-celebrity co-authors of your nanothermite paper [to which BTW you have not supplied a URL]. Not that I, as a lone nut on the internet, want to have a multi-front online engagement, you are almost at the point where you need to engage them to have them help defend NT.
They should be given my RESET DISCUSSION at the top of this thread, the babystep WTC-4 stuff including the NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
The assignment is for them, as experts and co-authors on prior NT works, to speculate how NT was positioned to create the observed artifacts in the video, and how NT much would be required for "the energy to heat just 1,000 kg of steel by ~575 K is ~3×10⸠J" to soften structural steel as observed from the evidence.
I find it personally very challenging presently -- even as I type this -- to suppress my sarcasm and condescension.
This could be an integrity test of those nine (9) co-authors of NT work.
Theoretically, I'm challenging their life's work in the 9/11 Truth Movement with their NT efforts, so they ought to be ready to defend it. Funny thing is, I'll be defending their work too. They did what they were asked to do, like analyzing the dust with a focus on NT. It was a higher level that mustered the resources [e.g., nine co-authers] and had them go marching down the NT trail, while conveniently and purposely ignoring other destruction mechanisms.
Death, ill-health, or declining mental faculties gives a co-author a pass.
Beyond that, those who decline to engage a defense of NT get an increase in the probability they were "in-on-it."
Those who do engage to defend NT (which I assume is their life's work in the 9/11 Truth Movement), will get a judgment by latter-day lurker-readers in how objective the engaging co-author was: Are they willing to admit scope-limits and incompleteness on their NT work? Are they willing to objectively review the NIST anomalies and explain how NT could accomplish it, or not? Are they objective enough to review (again) all of the evidence from a "nuclear-DEW" perspective to determine its merits and demerits?
Will any of them pass the integrity test by admitting publicly: "This exotic nuke analysis of 9/11 is new information for me. It is rather compelling. Further and sadly for me, NT weaknesses become somewhat gating, when pointed out. I now change my mind about what the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction were, and believe 'nuclear-DEW' comes closer to the truth, and only gets further underscored as valid when the stilted, deceiving, misdirecting, incomplete issues of the NT psyops secondary narrative are pointed out."
// Part 2/2
x86 Maxwell C. Bridges : Tell your NT co-authors that nobody is criticizing their NT work.
2025-11-09
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02okNHiFrqDWedgwdRhPieHEjaw8hmQePbqAktfwSYVSVitj63Ju1FJ6fToFRNEAUbl
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, My naive and trusting superpowers have confidence that this last week, similar to Tom Cruise as "Jack Reacher", you've been his cousin, "Jack RESEARCHER" as per your namesake! This is not meant to interrupt those worthy researching endeavors into the NIST video and into WTC-4 with its companion video. [Repeated below ++++.]
This comment is meant to praise your efforts in light of the pain, headaches, and suffering you must be going through, all induced by Cognitive Dissonance. Not just you; the nine (9) co-authors of your nano-thermite work with whom you've undoubtedly been in contact. [If not, you ought to.]
Tell your NT co-authors that nobody is criticizing their NT work. They dutifully did what they were told, and marched the research direction pointed out by Dr. Steven Jones.
What is being criticized is the clever and deceitful ways in which Dr. Steven Jones's faux "mini-nuke" vector took out of consideration all other nuclear vectors. Omitted from the "mini-nuke" debunking were any mention of neutron devices (1970's) and their exotic FGNW descendants, an omission shared in Dr. Judy Wood's DEW work as well as AE9/11Truth in its FAQ debunking "nuclear blast".
I hope we can re-direct the anger welling up in many of you NT co-authors upon realizing -- like with my improved WTC-4 Analysis -- how you were used as duped useful idiots for NT. Nobody from AE9/11Truth did WTC-4 justice (or WTC-5 and WTC-6), which is a glaring omission now spanning over a decade. AE9/11Truth with a focus on the WTC destruction could get away with gatekeeping on the Pentagon until recently. But their strength has been gatekeeping from WTC-4, 5, and 6, because these are explained neither by wall assemblies plus gravity nor by NT.
You nine (9) NT co-authors will undoubtedly run through the emotions of deep betrayal from what Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth inflicted upon you, AE9/11Truth members, the public, the world.
Channel these emotions -- not into vindictive actions against them (or me, the messenger) -- but into contrition, self-forgiveness, and restitution to the public distracted from (primary cause) truth that your NT work accomplished.
Publicly apologize for having led others astray, and work through your humble networking channels to correct the record. "Based on this new information and analysis of 9/11, I change my mind about the primary mechanisms of 9/11 WTC destruction, and exotic nuclear devices I now consider the most probable."
++++ Repeating the scope limited assignment for the co-author of NT work
This video is very long, but you don't have to watch the whole thing. Here are six representative timestamps that we can use to focus our discussion. When you view the anomalous evidence, the left-lens of your eye-wear will be from a perspective of NT, while the right-lens is from the perspective of exotic FGNW. Switching focus between lens, speculate briefly into the specifics of how each lens perspective could account for the anomaly.
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.
>>> 1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.
>>> 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.
WTC-4 Analysis
This blog posting "Exotika 911 Blackhole #4" about the WTC-4 has a companion vido.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
The video isn't very long (<15 minutes). This is the "9 11 1st Tower Collapse WTC2 Compilation Raw Footage".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfphCLtUUI
++++ Bonus Dr Jones content
In the letter by Dr. Steven E. Jones "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" (28 Sept 2006) at the end he offers a "Conclusion and a challenge."
Dr. Jones wrote: "Proponents of the 'mini-nuke' theory are invited to organize their data and write up a serious evidence-oriented paper, to submit to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a reply to this Letter. That reply will be published."
First note how it is framed as "mini-nuke" and not "exotic nukes" (FGNW).
Secondly, I accepted the invitation, organized my data, and wrote up a serious evidence-oriented pager that I submitted to the "International Center for 9/11 Justice" (the successor to the "Journal of 9/11 Studies"). I submitted several version, the third on 2024-08-25. It was ~NOT~ published.
My FGNW Discussions Volume 5 has "Part 1: FGNW Discussions with International Center for 9/11 Justice, Ted Walter, James Gourley, Piers Robinson." 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. .
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/fgnw-discussions-vol-5.html
//
x88 Maxwell C. Bridges : clever and deceitful ways of Dr. Steven Jones
2025-11-10
[messenger]
Dear Mr. Reese Erch-Guy, My naive and trusting superpowers have confidence that this last week, similar to Tom Cruise as "Jack Reacher", you've been his cousin, "Jack RESEARCHER" as per your namesake! This is not meant to interrupt those worthy researching endeavors into the NIST video and into WTC-4 with its companion video.
This comment is meant to praise your efforts in light of the pain, headaches, and suffering you must be going through, all induced by Cognitive Dissonance. Not just you; the nine (9) co-authors of your nano-thermite work with whom you've undoubtedly been in contact. [If not, you ought to.]
Tell your NT co-authors that nobody is criticizing their NT work. They dutifully did what they were told, and marched the research direction pointed out by Dr. Steven Jones.
What is being criticized is the clever and deceitful ways in which Dr. Steven Jones's faux "mini-nuke" letter took out of consideration all other nuclear vectors. Omitted from the "mini-nuke" debunking were any mention of neutron devices (1970's) and their exotic FGNW descendants, an omission shared in Dr. Judy Wood's DEW work as well as AE9/11Truth in its faux FAQ debunking "nuclear blast".
You nine (9) NT co-authors will undoubtedly run through the emotions of deep betrayal from what Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth inflicted upon you, AE9/11Truth members, the public, the world.
Channel these emotions -- not into vindictive actions against them (or me, the messenger) -- but into contrition, self-forgiveness, and restitution to the public distracted from (primary cause) truth that your NT work accomplished.
Publicly apologize for having led others astray, and work through your humble networking channels to correct the record. "Based on this new information and analysis of 9/11, I change my mind about the primary mechanisms of 9/11 WTC destruction, and exotic nuclear devices I now consider the most probable."
//
x90 Maxwell C. Bridges : ATTENTION ALL Nanothermite CHAMPIONS
2025-11-12
https://www.facebook.com/sandra.jelmi/posts/pfbid02Pm2knGY5neNWkXsq6eEyAP2vGD5H9kcL1LVocw2aHQNrWKJUCv1ECK8GqhayneZLl?comment_id=1356424509180899
ATTENTION ALL Nanothermite CHAMPIONS:
To spare Ms. Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda's comments the tedium of a discussion about how NT is blatant disinformation as well as to spare it an "NT (versus FGNW)" debate, I managed to move it to a posting on my wall. (Could have been elsewhere and on Mr. Reese Erch-Guy's home court, but he was dragging his feet.)
Allow me to set the scene for the latter-day lurker readers and 9/11 affictionados.
Mr. Reese Erch-Guy is one of the nine (9) co-authors (with Dr. Steven Jones) on at least one of the nanothermite (NT) papers.
Me, Maxwell C. Bridges? I'm just an earnest but persistent seeker of (9/11) Truth who happened to have spelunked down many (disinfo 9/11) rabbit-holes -- including government reports -- in search of nuggets of truth to be rescued, and the nuggets of disinformation to be flagged as such. Those nuggets of truth combine to expose exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW) as the primary means of WTC destruction.
Here is the FB URL to that discussion.
https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02okNHiFrqDWedgwdRhPieHEjaw8hmQePbqAktfwSYVSVitj63Ju1FJ6fToFRNEAUbl
SPOILER ALERT: The discussion was reset to (a) my WTC-4 analysis with companion video on WTC-2 collapse compilation, and (b) NIST/FEMA video on anomalies saved and videoed at the Fresh Kills scrapyard, anomalies at 6 timestamps of the 2+ hour video.
The side defending NT and the honor of everybody who ever worked on NT papers, began looking for lame excuses (e.g., condescension or sarcasm are ad hominem) to bail out of the conversation. He thought that it would be an easy slam dunk to prove that NT was not blatant disinformation. He admitted later that he was un-prepared for my articulate, reasoned, substantiated replies and the thoroughness of my articles.
It is hard to tell with the silence whether or not the NT (versus FGNW) is going to continue after this lull.
ATTENTION ALL NT CHAMPIONS: You owe it to yourselves to see if NT was debunked and is therefore "blatant disinformation."
//
<- hide above -->
Part 3: AE911Truth Discussions with Erich Maraite, Peter Davenport, and Craig McKee
This discussion transpired under Mr. Craig McKee's substack "Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors". Some of AE911Truth's dirty laundry were aired in his posting. My comments were not favorable to AE911Truth. Mr. Erich Maraite wrote something about AE911Truth with which I had a hair-split. Over the course of the discussion (reminding me of Mr. Adam Ruff) my credentials as a vetted signer of AE911Truth were questioned, and a whole carousel spin went around the history of the AE911Truth petition. But when the discussion was brought around to the crux of my hair-split with his AE911Truth homage that involves just three minutes of the NIST/FEMA video, Mr. Erich Maraite goes radio silent (reminding me of how Dr. Andre Gsponer's work made Mr. Adam Ruff go radio silent in discussions from last decade.)
x92 Peter E Davenport : Appreciate all Craig and Andy do and to never go silent
2025-11-14
https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/the-assassination-of-ae911truth-and/comments
Appreciate all you and Andy do and to never go silent, which is clearly the obvious as you both exemplify. Good Luck in whichever path or paths you take from here, but I think you guys should move on and you work well together, so I hope you two will still work together and keep putting podcasts out. And it would be appropriate for Richard to take over AE and they can organize their own affairs. It's too bad when things well-intentioned dissolve into squabbles but you always expect truth and accuracy at the very least - aside from personal opinion, so good on you for calling it out, Craig.
x94 Maxwell C. Bridges : [Andy Steele and Craig McKee] should move on [from AE911Truth]
2025-11-20
Dear Mr. Peter E Davenport, you wrote: "I think you guys [Andy Steele and Craig McKee] should move on [from AE911Truth] and you work well together, so I hope you two will still work together and keep putting podcasts out."
I agree. Mr. McKee and Mr. Steele do work well together and have put out good work.
I agree they should move on from AE911Truth.
But my reasoning is that AE911Truth was founded from the onset as "controlled opposition." Setting aside the Pentagon gatekeeping, AE911Truth couldn't even fulfill its mandate that tried to explain the World Trade Center destruction. After over a decade, they have next to diddly squat on WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.
This is important to point out, because each building individually don't support their psyop secondary narratives (which were nanothermite, DEW-from-afar, and deep-underground nukes). All had fatal flaws, but NT was deemed the fallback. Wall assemblies falling from great heights under the forces of gravity do not explain WTC-4, and neither does NT. Ditto for the other buildings.
AE911Truth was designed to be ineffectual and implode.
BTW, here is my WTC-4 analysis.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
And it hints at the much LARGER omission and disinfo steering of AE911Truth that makes the organization perpetually untrustworthy.
//
x96 Maxwell C. Bridges : behind-the-scenes in-fighting at AE9/11Truth
2025-11-19
https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/who-censored-pentagon-interview-on
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, thank you for providing the insight into behind-the-scenes in-fighting at my alma mater, AE9/11Truth.
Objectively speaking, previously Mr. Richard Gage in his role as CEO of AE9/11Truth had acted as a gatekeeper on the Pentagon issue. They claimed AE9/11Truth's focus was the destruction of the WTC, and the Pentagon was important but a side-issue from their focus. He was fired. You were permitted to publish Pentagon related articles to AE9/11Truth. Then he was re-hired (or not), and in the process acted again as a gatekeeper to have your Pentagon articles un-published.
You ought to be |<--this-->| far away from labeling it what it is: infiltration and steering of the organized 9/11 Truth Movement (AE9/11Truth).
I certainly have my own old tales of woe to tell of the blackholing that my 9/11 hobby-horse topic received with the organized portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement (AE9/11Truth & IC9/11Justice). So allow me to relate a recent tale of woe.
I made a comment of FB that poked a co-author (1 of 9) of the NT work in the eye. He thought that he could easily best me and prove my contention wrong. He called me out for a rational debate. He failed in disproving my contention, that nanothermite (NT) was "blatant disinformation," which in turn rubs off on the reputation of Dr. Steven Jones.
Because when he called me out for a debate, he had no idea of my blog, of my many years discussing 9/11, of my articulated thesis, or my zeal. Therefore, partway through I offered to limit our (otherwise wide-ranging) discuss to just one blog article on WTC-4, its companion video (WTC-2 collapse compilation videa), and six (6) timestamps from the long NIST/FEMA video on anomalous evidence at the Fresh Kills recycling location.
Shortly after this, the NT co-author stopped participating.
The WTC-4 analysis that I provided of the WTC-2 collapse (screen-shots from the video) proves that AE9/11Truth didn't live up to its scope-limited mandate of "WTC destruction." AE9/11Truth has next to nothing on WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6. Why? Because the physics of falling wall assemblies does not account for the destruction, which is observed in videos as going up in fresh content-rich clouds of debris ~BEFORE~ the falling tower debris reaches it.
NT does not answer WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, so AE9/11Truth is ever the gatekeeper in preventing research that went that direction.
The evidence at the six (6) timestamps from NIST/FEMA video were towers' wall assemblies that NIST/FEMA labeled to be saved and studied (like by the video). The challenge put to the NT co-author was to wild-ass bat-shit-crazy speculate into how NT was positioned and configured in the towers to achieve these artifacts.
Of course, I could easily provide the arguments for how exotic FGNW accomplished this.
But I'm sure the NT co-author's cognitive dissonance headaches were kicking in from having NT so thoroughly trashed, to have his heroes (Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage, AE9/11Truth) legitimately called "disinfo agents" for their blatant omissions and steering,
Circling back to your last two articles.
AE9/11Truth needs a lot more to have its reputation restored. On the Pentagon side, your experience already proves active gatekeeping, suppression, and latter-day censorship.
Not a surprise that they would also actively deep-six analysis into WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 as well as anything suggesting more energetic destruction devices of a nuclear nature, because their limited hang-out theory of NT doesn't cut it.
When we combine our two separate experiences with AE9/11Truth, the conclusion is the same. AE9/11Truth was infiltrated from the onset to keep certain fringe themes from becoming mainstream.
P.S. Links to this FB discussion (not yet re-purposed to my blog), to my WTC-4 analysis, to the NIST/FEMA video, or to my exotic FGNW 9/11 theories available upon request.
//
x98 Erich Maraite : backed up by the professional expertise
2025-11-19
The base premise of AE911Truth has always been the "AE" part: That their claims and demands are backed up by the professional expertise of an ever growing number of "thousands" of technical experts - Architects & Engineers.
We appear to have a war right now between a group of NON-architects and NON-engineers (McKee, Steele) vs a group of actual architects and engineers (Gage, Cole, Pfeiffer, Dusterwald, ...).
How to resolve this?
Well, have you tried polling the alleged >3,000 A&E who have signed the "Petition" over the past 18 years?
Ask them whether they believe or don't believe a large plane it the Pentagon?
Whether they want to have the scope expanded to the Pentagon issue?
And while you are at it: Whether they still stand by their original signature - or rather want to withdraw from the "Petition"?
Alternatively, if no one wants to learn the opinion of the 3,000+ A&E, I suggest dropping all pretense that AE911Truth has much of anything to do with architects or engineers, and rename it after whoever happens to have the upper hand in the ongoing power struggle. E.g. "KK911T" (Kelly & Kamal for 9/11 Truth". Or previously "SM911T" (for "Steele and McKee").
x100 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE9/11Truth was controlled opposition
2025-11-20
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite, you wrote: "The base premise of AE911Truth has always been the 'AE' part: That their claims and demands are backed up by the professional expertise of an ever growing number of 'thousands' of technical experts - Architects & Engineers."
I am a vetted member of AE9/11Truth since they first put a petition out. All these years later, I now see something different. AE9/11Truth was controlled opposition. It was infiltrated right from the onset to keep those 'thousands' of technical experts -- Architects & Engineers -- somewhat appeased. Anybody who isn't science challenged recognized the energetic flaws in the WTC destruction, so this needed to be slow-walked and channeled.
Craig McKee had legitimate issues with how AE9/11Truth considered the Pentagon out of its scope limited to WTC destruction. But I have had legitimate issues with how AE9/11Truth didn't meet its own mandate and scope-limiting. It has next to nothing about WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, not even a ballpark description of the physics of falling wall assemblies and how it could dustify/flatten 9-stories of WTC-4 Main Edifice or create an 8-story crater in WTC-6.
Why? Because NT doesn't explain it, and the mechanisms of destruction that can easily explain it all were nuclear powered.
"Wait a minute," you might exclaim! "Before AE9/11Truth came into being, Dr. Steven Jones repudiate mini-nukes, and then later AE9/11Truth created its own FAQ debunking nuclear blasts."
The devil is in the framing. Both Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth were framing things as mini-nukes, which are supposedly smaller yield versions of our Grandfather's nukes. They destroyed things primarily with their heat and blast waves, essentially a spherical emission from the detonation point. Would have taken out half of Manhattan and spread nuclear badness all over the place, yada, yada, yada.
As a professor of nuclear physics, Dr. Steven Jones undoubtedly had non-disclosure agreements (NDA) on things nuclear. None of his 9/11 work was in violation of those NDAs, because he only described (poorly) things already in the public domain.
The works of Dr. Andre Gsponer were a major omission by Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood in their literature review in their completely shoddy nuclear research. Although Dr. Gsponer wrote about the capabilities of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) that were pure fusion, his descriptions related to late-3rd / pre-mature-4th generation weapons. Because pure fusion is extremely (e.g., near impossible) to initiate on its own, the latter devices (exotic nukes) were hybrid-fission/fusion. The fission stage was not used for destruction but to generate the requisite heat for fusion. The fusion stage was not designed for a large heat or blast wave, but instead (as proposed for FGNW) released its highly energetic neutrons (or other designed-for emissions) in a targeted fashion, putting it into the category of directed energy weapons (DEW).
The effects of highly energetic neutrons passing through content would be vastly different than Dr. Jones mini-nukes or AE9/11Truth's nuclear blast wave.
But this right here is the deceit perpetrated on the membership of AE9/11Truth and the world. The infiltrated AE9/11Truth leadership were not objective or thorough, and ignored the mounting evidence of 9/11 nuclear involvement.
Because me calling Dr. Jones, Mr. Gage, Mr. Chandler, AE9/11Truth leadership, etc. "disinfo agents" probably creates massive cognitive dissonance headaches in those 9/11 Truthers who have read this comment this far, I feel for you. But if you are a sincere truth seeker, you'll continue. I've documented both my 9/11 nuclear premise and re-purposed 9/11 discussions that I have had over the years in earnest and sincere attempts to have my premise legitimately debunked.
Rather than overwhelm you with the many research papers and discussions on my blog (that you can discover on your own), if you (or others) want to disabuse me of my 9/11 nuclear premise, the following link (and URL to the companion video referenced within) would be a good place to start.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
The above article discusses the WTC-4 destruction. Even before you get to the portion of that article where I pull out evidence for exotic FGNW ("Evidence of Fission"), the fraud of AE9/11Truth will become apparent just from their missing detailed WTC-4 analysis.
P.S. My intent is ~not~ to pollute Mr. McKee's discussion forum!
Anybody wanting to discuss this in depth and perchance debunk my premise in a rational discussion, suggest a venue for the discussion.
If you don't propose anything, my blog is an option (bad because comments are limited in length and moderated, but it is functional); Facebook could work, where I have 9/11 nuke articles pinned on my FB wall; I have a rarely used substack, where I could post something to anchor the discussion; even email could work. I don't need "home court advantage," which is why you can suggest a venue.
P.P.S. Dear Mr. "9/11 Revisionist" aka Norman, if my comments trigger you, send me an email. Don't reply to my comment here; this is not an invitation for your spamming. You have me blocked on your substack as but a token of your insincerity. Alas, it is one thing that you don't understand your premise (Woodsian-DEW) and its built-in limitation. But it is entirely another thing altogether that you have proven you don't have the ability to adapt, evolve, or change your mind (a strong indication of agenthood).
How can I be so bold in making this assessment?
When faced with the fact Dr. Wood connected no dots, drew no conclusions, didn't power her innuendo with anything real world, did a shitty job of research into both DEW and nukes, and completely side-stepped any notion of "DEW from within", you should have been the first disciple of exotic FGNW technically in the category of "nuclear DEWs from within".
//
x102 Erich Maraite : evidence to back up claim of being vetted member of AE9/11Truth
2025-11-20
Maxwell, you wrote: "I am a vetted member of AE9/11Truth since they first put a petition out."
Can you provide evidence to back up this claim? You do not seem to be a signatory of the Petition as per the year 2023 (the ae911truth website hasn't updated the list nor the number of petition signers since 2023).
https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE/
https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/General/B/
"Because NT doesn't explain it, and the mechanisms of destruction that can easily explain it all were nuclear powered."
Please don't change the topic so drastically.
x104 Maxwell C. Bridges : casting shade on my credentials while ignoring entirely the substance of my words
2025-11-27
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite,
Shame on you for your ad hominem that tries to discredit my words by casting shade on my credentials while ignoring entirely the substance of my words.
Mr McKee's topic was loosely about AE911TRUTH being controlled opposition based on one data point, suppression of Pentagon discussion. It takes at least 2 data points to make a trend line. I provide that 2nd and a 3rd data point, which were (2) AE911TRUTH NOT living up to their own mandates of explaining the WTC destruction because they continue to ignore WTC-4, 5, and 6 for over a decade now; and (3) AE911TRUTH doing a monumentally shitty job of debunking nuclear involvement in favor of the NT limited hangout.
The latter was not a drastic change in subject, because I offered to take the nuclear discussion elsewhere. Name your venue, and I'll school you proper there. My thesis is already written up with a link for you to take target practice at and tear apart if you are able. NT don't explain WTC-4, and neither did AE911TRUTH.
Most certainly I can prove that my Bruce Wayne was an AE911TRUTH signer (on the 2nd list) with the degrees vetted. You're dealing with my online batman who doesn't have a degree under his own name. Without doxing me, Mr McKee can confirm that my Bruce Wayne is on the list.
//
x106 Erich Maraite : substance of your words are are a deliberate derail of the conversaton
2025-11-27
Dear Mr. Bridges, or Mr. Wayne, or whatever personality I am writing to at this time,
You said "Shame on you for your ad hominem"
I did not write an "ad hominem". "Ad hominem" refers to the fallacy of arguing that, because the interlocutor has some personal trait, their argument is therefore false.
What I DID was to be skeptical about your claim that you, Maxwell C. Bridges, are "...a vetted member of AE9/11Truth since they first put a petition out."
This seemed to imply that you, Maxwell C. Bridges, have signed the AE911Truth Petition, as Maxwell C. Bridges.
I did my due diligence, and checked the lists of AE911Truth Petition signers, both the "Architects and Engineers" and the "General Public" parts, for the last name "Bridges", and found no one by the name Maxwell (or Max) C. (or no C.) Bridges.
That's why I asked you to clarify: "Can you provide evidence to back up this claim [that you are a vetted member of AE9/11Truth since they first put a petition out]? You do not seem to be a signatory of the Petition as per the year 2023 (the ae911truth website hasn't updated the list nor the number of petition signers since 2023)."
"...that tries to discredit my words by casting shade on my credentials"
Well, YOU made your credentials part of this debate, so I guess they are fair game. The only credentials I questions were those that you claimed: That you are "a vetted member of AE9/11Truth since they first put a petition out". Since no "Maxwell C. Bridges" signed the AE911Truth Petition, prima facie evidence says your claimed credentials to that particular effect are FALSELY claimed. That's why I asked.
"while ignoring entirely the substance of my words."
The substance of your words are are a deliberate derail of the conversaton started by Craig McKee, and a comment thread started to me. It is generally a wise polic to NOT FEED TROLLS who spam their own favority content wherever it doesn't belong, and to ignore them. That's why I ignored the bulk of your words and only responded to the bit that is responsive to my comment - your (apparently FALSE) claim to be "a vetted member of AE9/11Truth since they first put a petition out".
You wrote: "Most certainly I can prove that my Bruce Wayne was an AE911TRUTH signer (on the 2nd list) with the degrees vetted."
I don't understand what you mean by these words: "my Bruce Wayne". Do you own a Bruce Wayne? Are you related or married to a Bruce Wayne?
I don't understand what you mean by these words: "was an AE911TRUTH signer". Is he no longer? Did he retract his signature? Did AE delete his signature? Did he die?
There is currently (by which I mean: perusing the Petition data as displayed on the ae911truth.org website today, which reflects Petition signers as of some time in 2023, after which AE failed to update) no "Bruce Wayne" on the Petition - not as an A&E, nor even "on the 2nd list" as member of the "General Public".
What, anyway, is the relevance of this Bruce Wanye?
In light of my comment, which focused on the 3,600+ signatories on the FIRST list, who are almost all degreed architects or engineers, any signatory from the "2nd list" is irrelevant anyway.
x108 Maxwell C. Bridges : can't even figure out a Mark Twain pen-name from an in-the-flesh Samuel Clemens
2025-12-02
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite,
You wrote: "The substance of your words are a deliberate derail of the conversation started by Craig McKee, and a comment thread started to me."
Quite the contrary, the substance of my words related directly both to Mr. McKee's posting and your comment. Only below the "see more..." fold maybe my comment went into the weeds, but only if the reader wants to read it.
You, however, are deliberately going "ad hominem" -- "at the man" -- when you can't even figure out an online batman from his Bruce Wayne, from a Mark Twain pen-name to an in-the-flesh Samuel Clemens who cashed the royalty checks. And you act all the innocent in your ignorance as to why such a thing as anonymity on the internet might be a desirable thing. Consistent usage of the persona, along with blog, demonstrates that I do stand behind my words; I'm not running away, but I am adding some protection to family and extended family, and those sharing the "Wayne" family name, who maybe don't need "the kook of this nut rubbing off on them" in their endeavors.
You wrote: "... any signatory from the [AE911TRUTH] '2nd list' is irrelevant anyway."
You clearly don't know the different between the two lists and why they were necessary.
The first list was only for Architects or Civil Engineers, which didn't really rattle a lot of interest in those ranks. The problem was, all of the other engineering disciplines had as much or more college level physics as the Architects. And those meager physics studies alone were sufficient to get them to be vocal about the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) being so non-physics compliant as to be laughable. Ergo, 2nd list was opened for additional engineer signatures, albeit upon actual vetting of the credentials.
More importantly, clearly you are a vetted signer on neither of the AE911TRUTH lists.
//
x110 Erich Maraite : Oof, holy Batman, are you wrong! :D
2025-12-02
Erich Maraite
Oof, holy Batman, are you wrong! :D
"You clearly don't know the different between the two lists and why they were necessary."
Think I don't? Think you do? Think again!
"The first list was only for Architects or Civil Engineers"
UNTRUE. The first Petition list, the "A&E" is for all degreed (Bachelor and better) architects and engineers - no matter what engineering discipline.
"which didn't really rattle a lot of interest in those ranks."
Okay, THAT is true - although it is equally true for all other ranks, within or outside the first list.
"The problem was, all of the other engineering disciplines had as much or more college level physics as the Architects."
Could be, yeah.
"And those meager physics studies alone were sufficient to get them to be vocal about the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) being so non-physics compliant as to be laughable."
Yeah, "be vocal" is putting it nicely.
"Ergo, 2nd list was opened for additional engineer signatures, albeit upon actual vetting of the credentials."
Okay, again, this is plain WRONG. The second Petition list is for all who are neither degreed architects nor degreed engineers. Not electrical engineers, not mechanical engineers, not software engineers. You know, just general, uncredentialed general public with no education relevant to erecting structures. That's why they call it the "General Public" list.
Why do you not know this??
"More importantly, clearly you are a vetted signer on neither of the AE911TRUTH lists."
Au contraire! :D Not being an architect nor an engineer, I HAVE signed and AM listed on the "General Public" list - at least twice! I think I have signed three or four times, but seem to have forgotten my other noms de plume ;)
x112 Maxwell C. Bridges : ran out steam in vetting the flood
2025-12-04
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite, I think the door is wide open for both of our recollections to have errors. I wrote that the first AE911Truth list was restricted to only Architects and Civil Engineers. Although I didn't state it, the requirement also was that they be have degrees (Bachelor or better), and this was vetted.
You state that the first list was open to all engineering disciplines. Whether or not this LATER became true, this was not the case at the beginning.
You wrote: "The second Petition list is for all who are neither degreed architects nor degreed engineers. Not electrical engineers, not mechanical engineers, not software engineers. You know, just general, uncredentialed general public with no education relevant to erecting structures. That's why they call it the 'General Public' list."
The purposes or restrictions on each list morphed with time, as did the web process for signing and how vetting happened. So what requirements applied to me when I signed changed and no longer reflects what is there today.
It wouldn't surprise me that when they opened the 1st list to all engineering disciplines, the flood of signers overwhelmed the AE911Truth volunteers doing vetting. Maybe if a candidate couldn't have their credentials vetted quickly (say, 5 minutes google) by the volunteer, their triage efforts simply inserted the candidate onto that 2nd list.
Looking at my Bruce Wayne's entry on the 2nd list, it kept company with lots of other signers who provided their (engineering) credentials and probably expected to be placed on the 1st list but weren't. I think the AE911Truth volunteers merely ran out steam in vetting the flood.
I don't recall the 2nd list being "general public" at the onset. If anything the 2nd list was, "not-yet-vetted" engineers or scientific types.
The decision to make that 2nd list wide-open to the general public to just sign in support was wrong, because they should have created a 3rd list for those supports without credentials, rather than watering down that 2nd list of engineers and scientific types.
When I complain about AE911Truth being milquetoast, the number of signers of the 2nd list who have degrees and engineering credentials is a red flag of how AE911Truth throttled itself. By rights, we should have been vetted and promoted the 1st list, which would have increased its count by easily thousands.
//
x114 Erich Maraite : ae911truth WayBackMachine
2025-12-05
So many words, Bruce Wayne, and not a single statement that is true!
The ae911truth website was launched in May 2007.
Here is a screenshot from that website, made on the WayBackMachine on June 1st, 2007, so within less than a month of the petition going online, listing ALL signatories they had at the time, separated into (then) 5 categories:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070601165504/http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Architects (degrees+licensed): 16
Archtiect (degreed only): 17
Engineers (degreed+licensed): 4
Engineers (degreed only): 9
Others (non-A&E): 4
As you can see for yourself: Not a single licensed civil engineer - the four PEs are: 2 electrical engineers, 1 mechanical engine, 1 land surveyor!
Among the 9 engineers without a license: only 2 civil engineers!
You wrote: "I think the door is wide open for both of our recollections to have errors."
Absolutely. Which is why I keep relevant data close by.
You wrote: "I wrote that the first AE911Truth list was restricted to only Architects and Civil Engineers."
As you can tell from the data, it was also Mechanical, Electrical. Chemical engineers. and even a Land Surveyor!
You wrote: "Although I didn't state it, the requirement also was that they be have degrees (Bachelor or better)"
Well, I stated it - glad you agreed with me.
You wrote: "..., and this was vetted."
Was it really? Oh boy, are you in for a surprise!! You see, until two days before that June 1st capture, there was NO vetting going on at all, as a rowdy group of true skeptics found out to their great delight:
https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?threads/merged-architects-and-engineers-for-9-11-truth-scam.83483/
So, these people added signatures with names such as "A. Hole", "Richard Head B.Arch, Scam Artist", "P. S. Merkwurdiglieb" ("Merkwürdigliebe" is German for "Strangelove"), "Barney Rubble", "Robin Hood", "McGruff the Crime Dog, Crimefighter", and my favorite: "Berevtov Szánitiy"- on that day, they brought the signature count up to 93.
Those shenanigans were spotted by the ae911truth webmaster within 3 hours (kudos!), the "joinme" functio was disabled and the obvious fake signatures deleted. Half an hour later, the count was down to 72, and, as I showed earlier, by June 1st, it was down to 50. So, half the signatures were entirely fake, none were vetted AT ALL, and it was already open to ALL kinds of engineers!
You wrote: "You state that the first list was open to all engineering disciplines. Whether or not this LATER became true, this was not the case at the beginning."
As I have shown above, you are WRONG here! From the beginning, it was open to ALL engineers. That never changed! Indeed, the very first Professional Engineers included ZERO Civil Engineers.
You wrote: "The purposes or restrictions on each list morphed with time"
No, they didn't. The petition was open to all architects, all engineers, whether licensed or not, and also to all members of the General Public ("others and students") from the very beginning. The only things they chamged in all those years were merely a matter of presentation, not of "purposes or restrictions":
1. They separated the "Others and Students" into a distinct list
2. They added a category "Non-US architects and engineers"
"as did the web process for signing and how vetting happened."
Yes, they changed from "not vetting" to "vetting".
"So what requirements applied to me when I signed changed and no longer reflects what is there today."
As shown at length, this is and remains FALSE: The Petition was explicitly open to ALL engineers from the very beginning, and they also ALWAYS welcomed non-A&E, just listed them separately in their own "others" category. The requirements NEVER changed.
You wrote: "It wouldn't surprise me that when they opened the 1st list to all engineering disciplines..."
Again, they NEVER "opened the 1st list", because it had been open from the very beginning - the very first 4 Professional Engineers to sign were NOT civil engineers!
You wrote: "...the flood of signers overwhelmed the AE911Truth volunteers doing vetting."
Again, in the first month, there was NO vetting at all. They introduced vetting on or after May 30th, 2007, and it stands to reason that it took them some time to formalize the vetting process. It's possible that it was somewhat LESS stringent when you signed up.
You wrote: "Maybe if a candidate couldn't have their credentials vetted quickly (say, 5 minutes google) by the volunteer, their triage efforts simply inserted the candidate onto that 2nd list."
Maybe, maybe not. You make up stuff, you imagine. That's even worse than mistaken recollection.
"Looking at my Bruce Wayne's entry on the 2nd list, it kept company with lots of other signers who provided their (engineering) credentials"
What do you mean by "lots"? Thousands? According to some, proper counting goes "1, 2, 3, many". So - is "lots" 4 or more? Can you be any less vague, please? And please, where is your data to support the claim that they ("lots" of "them") "provided their (engineering) credentials"? How could you possibly know? You have not been present when "lots" of engineers submitted their onliny signature, nor when they submitted their credentials, or were you?
"and probably expected to be placed on the 1st list but weren't. I think the AE911Truth volunteers merely ran out steam in vetting the flood."
No. That is slander! I have tested the vetting process many years ago (early 2010s), and found that it typically took them about 2 weeks to vet an A&E professional, while they waved the non-A&E through, as long as they passed some sort of smell test (they DID read the submitted profile information, and would reject those with obvious mock names, or with statements that quite obviously run against the "9/11 Truth" message. I submitted a signature myself, claiming to be a civil engineer, my signature was withheld, and they sent me an email asking me to provide a copy (could have been a scan or photo) of my college diploma. I responded that I have none, that I only tested the process, and they replied "okay, no harm done". Quite professional!
There were certainly times when the Verification Team (yes, that was a thing! Look it up!) had less capacity or "steam" than at others; then it would take them longer to vet a submission. However, they (almost) never dropped someone who claimed to have an A or E degree, but couldn't prove it, onto the "2nd list"! There are very few "other" signatories with a hint toward being a degreed architect or engineer. Any by "very few", I mean <0.5%. Which means a number that's NOT significant in proportion to the 3,600 A&E signatories, the vast majority of whom have been properly vetted.
So, "Maxwell", I responded to EVERYTHING you wrote in your last reply, and essentially ALL of what you wrote was essentially WRONG - as the data shows!
You need to do a LOT better! Do not rely on your faulty recollection. Seek data!
x116 Maxwell C. Bridges : I concede. You win this discussion
2025-12-05
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite, Congratulations on your way-back prowess in AE911Truth petition history. Such a fine 9/11 hobby-horse that you gallop around in! So regal and fine!
What I know for sure is that when I filled out the petition way-back, it was eager for us to list credentials with the promise that they would be vetted that would then allow promotion of our names on the coveted engineers list. The number of degree'd individuals on the 2nd list is proof that some benefit would be given to providing so much personal information.
Whatever. I concede. You win this discussion, while my Bruce Wayne remains listed among others on AE911Truth with some of the degrees that he worked hard for.
Meanwhile, if you want to continue to discuss in more important 9/11 matters -- like how AE911Truth was controlled opposition --, you should probably make them under my substack (or blog).
https://maxwellcbridges.substack.com/p/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons
To be clear, you'll have a better reading experience of the above on my blog, but you'll have a better commenting experience on my substack.
After all, I wrote and then you quoted me: "Because NT doesn't explain it, and the mechanisms of destruction that can easily explain it all were nuclear powered."
This remains the elephant in the room and the radioactive residue that leeches into the voracity of AE911Truth and pegs them controlled opposition.
Option 2 is to engage me under the challenge posting that I made to sincere truth seekers. Watch 3 minutes of a video and then contemplate how the anomaly in the video was created.
//
x118 Erich Maraite : Passive-aggressive ad-hom much? So regal and fine!
2025-12-05
"Congratulations on your way-back prowess in AE911Truth petition history. Such a fine 9/11 hobby-horse that you gallop around in! So regal and fine!"
Passive-aggressive ad-hom much? So regal and fine!
"What I know for sure is that when I filled out the petition way-back..."
No. You don't know that for sure. Why? Because this is just your own, human recollection, many years after the fact. Human recollection is extremely fallible.
"..., it was eager for us to list credentials with the promise that they would be vetted that would then allow promotion of our names on the coveted engineers list."
It was eager? The petition? How can a petition be eager? There is and never was an "engineers list", it was an "architects & engineers" list. And they never "listed" (as in "publicly showed" "credentials" (if by "credentials" you mean proof that you actually have the academic degree you claim to have, e.g. by providing them with a copy of your diploma with the engineering degree you claim to have). It is also WRONG that they would "promote" names to that "coveted" list: They would either list you as an engineer right away, once you showed credentials, or not list you at all (or list you in the "others" category, without degree)
"The number of degree'd individuals on the 2nd list..."
You write as if you knew such a number. Do you? What is that number? Can you provide evidence for an exact number, or for a reasonable estimate or lower bound?
",,,is proof ..."
The number could be proof of anything only (necessary but not sufficient condition) if you actually HAVE a number.
"...that some benefit would be given..."
What "benefit" are you thinking of that "would be given" to YOU? The main benefit would be to AE911T itself, wouldn't it, as their core argument is that from authority: "We have X degreed A&E on our petition, so you better believe us". What's in it for you?
"...to providing so much personal information."
You provide the main information (your name, you place of residence, your profession, your degree, and what college you have that degree from) already when you fill out the online form and submit it. What more personal information is there on the diploma you would submit to them, not to be published at all?
"Whatever. I concede. You win this discussion, ..."
A better man would have conceded without all the passive-agressive.
"...while my Bruce Wayne remains listed among others on AE911Truth with some of the degrees that he worked hard for."
I see no relevance in the hardness of your work.
"Meanwhile, if you want to continue to discuss in more important 9/11 matters -- like how AE911Truth was controlled opposition --, you should probably make them under my substack (or blog)."
And there you go - off topic derailing the thread. I already asked you not to.
To be clear: I do not consider AE911Truth to be "controlled opposition". I consider it a grift.
"To be clear, you'll have a better reading experience of the above on my blog, but you'll have a better commenting experience on my substack."
I have no interest in your blog, thank you very much.
"After all, I wrote and then you quoted me: "Because NT doesn't explain it, and the mechanisms of destruction that can easily explain it all were nuclear powered.""
If I actually quoted the "nuclear powered" bit, that would have been an editing mistake in my part.
To be clear: The "nuclear powered" narratives are much sooner "controlled opposition" than the likes of ae911truth. (See? It is easy and cheap to make such sweeping yet evidence-free claims.)
x120 Maxwell C. Bridges : To be even clearer
2025-12-02
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite, You absolutely suck at being a gracious winner.
You wrote: "To be clear: The 'nuclear powered' narratives are much sooner 'controlled opposition' than the likes of ae911truth."
To be even clearer: Most of the "nuclear powered" narratives WERE "controlled opposition" and disinformation. They did not take their research where it needed to go. They were stuck on the concept of "mini-nukes" and "deep underground nukes, one per tower." They could not explain placement and outcomes.
In a similar fashion, the Dr. Judy Wood directed energy weapons spiel was also "controlled opposition" and disinformation. They did not take their research where it needed to go. They let it get framed as "DEW from afar" (ABL, satellite), but never discussed "DEW from within."
Get this. The 9/11 nukers and the Woodsian DEWers (and the Jonesian NTers) never really legitimately debated one another. Individually, they all can be dead-to-rights debunked, yet none of them went after the other(s) to achieve this worthy goal of legitimately R.I.P. debunking a bad 9/11 premise.
Had they been sincere about truth, the 9/11 nukers and the Woodsian DEWers would have hooked up and spawned the theory "nuclear DEW from within (the buildings)". If their champions were objective and sincere, they'd be changing their tune and singing the praises of FGNW and Dr. Andre Gsponer (and my work that connects the 9/11 dots.)
AE911Truth gets pegged as controlled opposition for the shitty research that it did. Look no further than WTC-4, which can be observed going up in thick, content-rich clouds before the falling wall assemblies from WTC-2 fell to it (in many videos). The physics of the falling wall assemblies did not match destruction that resulted, and AE911Truth didn't question that.
I can point to the FAQ's from AE911Truth as disinformation. In one case, they frame the discussion as "nuclear blast" in a deceitful attempt to debunk "all forms of nuclear involvement." The thing is, variants of the FGNW do not have "nuclear blasts" as their primary nuclear yields; think DEW.
Hey, I guess my challenge to the sincere seekers of 9/11 truth (given in a top-level comment below) is also proof that AE911Truth is controlled opposition. Where do they even acknowledge that such a NIST FOIA video exists with examples of anomalous wall assemblies from the two towers? Where do they offer up how nanothermite created it?
As encouraged previously, option 1 take it to my substack, and option 2 make a comment under my comment that offers the 3 minutes of a video challenge.
//
x122 Erich Maraite : your fringe-among-fringe personal fantasies
2025-12-05
No one is interested in your fringe-among-fringe personal fantasies. They are off-topic here anyway. Have a nice weekend.
x124 Maxwell C. Bridges : explain how it created the anomaly
2025-12-06
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite, Your hypnotic suggestion has no power. Readers will make up their own minds with regards to whether or not AE911Truth had an obligation to catalog, consider, analyze, and report on all pieces of 9/11 WTC evidence that came their way, such as the video snippet that I recommended.
In a top-level comment -- edited to mention you directly -- three (3) minutes of a much longer video from NIST FOIA were presented for analysis.
Simply, for your own "fringe-among-fringe personal fantasy" of WTC destruction mechanisms, explain how it created the anomaly.
While this exercise might seem divergent, it is actually on-topic. On-topic is how the actions of AE911Truth had many instances where they didn't follow truth and science where it was needed to go. Instead, they supported psyops disinformation, and offered milquetoast limited hang-outs instead.
Don't respond here. Go to that top-level comment with the video link. Make your comment there, after watching at the three (3) minutes of that video.
Tick, tock. You signed the AE911Truth petition with your science-y credentials, therefore you have the wits to observe and come to your own conclusions. In fact, you'll have to come to your own conclusions, because you can't locate anywhere where AE911Truth addressed the evidence.
Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
This video is relevant evidence. Don't ignore it.
//
x126 Erich Maraite : your anomalies are mere cherry-picked curiosities
2025-12-06
"Readers will make up their own minds"
I see thay already have: No one engages you. No one is interested.
"...with regards to whether or not AE911Truth had an obligation..."
You are not defining AE's obligations, and readers, again, do not care for what you think.
"In a top-level comment -- edited to mention you directly -- ..."
Why is it so important to you to capture MY attention? Who am I to you? I am a nobody!
"...explain how it created the anomaly."
See, this is a core tenet of fallacious conspiratorial theorizing: Explain that anomaly explain this anomaly... But your anomalies are mere cherry-picked curiosities.
"While this exercise might seem divergent, it is actually on-topic. On-topic is how the actions of AE911Truth had many instances where they didn't follow truth and science where it was needed to go."
You are begging the question of what is the "truth". It is revealing that you even resort to the category of "truth". That is fundamentally unscientific speak.
"Instead, they supported psyops disinformation, and offered milquetoast limited hang-outs instead."
And they could copy&paste that and apply it to you, and you both would be equally right.
"Don't respond here. Go to that top-level comment"
Your demand has no power. I am not interested.
"You signed the AE911Truth petition with your science-y credentials, therefore you have the wits to observe and come to your own conclusions."
The name of your (informal) fallacy is colloqially called "Non Sequitur".
"In fact, you'll have to come to your own conclusions, because you can't locate anywhere where AE911Truth addressed the evidence."
Another Non Sequitur.
"Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored.""
This begs the question of what evidence is relevant. Among the prime tenets of the "conspiracy theorist" is the habit of latching onto the LEAST relevant oddities and call them "evidence".
"This video is relevant evidence. Don't ignore it."
Write a formal, scienctific paper, submit it to a well-regarded and relevant journal, and let me know when it has been published.
Real science is communicated that way.
Mock science sticks to social media and the comment sections of obscure blogs.
x128 Maxwell C. Bridges : the anomalies were cherry-picked by FEMA and NIST
2025-12-06
Dear Mr. Erich Maraite, You drop a log of hypnotic suggestion:
- "I see (the Readers) already have (made up their minds)"
- "No one engages you."
- "No one is interested."
- "You are not defining AE's obligations,"
- "and readers, again, do not care for what you think."
You did write a truth about yourself: "I am a nobody!"
You wrote: "See, this is a core tenet of fallacious conspiratorial theorizing: Explain that anomaly explain this anomaly... But your anomalies are mere cherry-picked curiosities."
Indeed, the anomalies were cherry-picked. It was FEMA and NIST who cherry-picked them; spray painted them with "save" while they were being loaded onto trailers at the WTC. Why did they choose them for further study? And just importantly, why are you so eager to brush them off as insignificant when FEMA and NIST thought otherwise?
Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
You wrote: "This begs the question of what evidence is relevant."
Exactly. FEMA and NIST already made their determination with what they had saved and later videoed (and then if they did write about, it was never made public.) As for AE911Truth, had they been a sincere and objective scientific organization, they would have written up an analysis of this evidence and made their proclamation about whether the evidence however anomalous was or was not relevant.
You wrote: "Among the prime tenets of the 'conspiracy theorist' is the habit of latching onto the LEAST relevant oddities and call them 'evidence'."
Among the prime tenets of controlled opposition groups is the habit of IGNORING any and all oddities in the evidence pool and leave their group's general membership and the public without the benefit of a written report to explain why the evidence was or was not relevant.
Therefore, true "fallacious conspiratorial theorizing" is really you dropping hypnotic suggestion to the readers that the "anomalies are mere cherry-picked curiosities" and not significant pieces of relevant evidence.
FTR, there were 2 (two) videos each 2 (two) hours long in this FOIA batch that AE911Truth ignored. I'm simply using 1 (one) example from 1 (one) video that is 3 (three) minutes in length. When considering Dr. Judy Wood's book, it had 500 images that AE911Truth ignored in its FAQ book report that spent 40% of its already meager word-count promoting nanothermite.
Because you are a science-challenged, authority-appealing, insincere seeker of 9/11 Truth who is losing in his defense of AE911Truth and the discussion in general.
So you insert new goal posts into the discussion: "Write a formal, scienctific paper, submit it to a well-regarded and relevant journal, and let me know when it has been published."
First of all, this was already done: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
This peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable science journal was published ~BEFORE~ Dr. Steven Jones in 2007 tried to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement with his psyops disinformation. Dr. Jones acted as a disinfo agent for the government to discredit Pons and Fleischman cold-fusion in the late 1980's. He did it again with 9/11 nukes, because he made no mention of Dr. Gsponer or another other public works, probably because he had NDA's that prevented him even mentioning and describing "exotic nukes."
Secondly, I did write a formal, scientific paper that I submitted to the International Center for 9/11 Justice. They gave me the run-around, as documented in Part 1 of FGNW Discussions Vol. 5. They were never going to publish it, because its validity even in small measures undermines IC911 on many levels owing to their focus on the nanothermite limited hang-out.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/fgnw-discussions-vol-5.html
Regarding the scientific paper and journals, you wrote: "Real science is communicated that way."
Except that "real science" is a captured entity by both the government and corporations. They determine what gets funding for research. They determine what gets published. And there isn't a scientific journal out there whose own (former) editors don't decry how "politics over science" negatively influence what got published. This is true in big pharma, but was also true about EVERY government agency report about 9/11. Regarding the latter, there isn't a single government agency report on 9/11 that can be trusted at face value. Ergo, it is rather ironic that you hold up writing a scientific paper as a gold standard.
You ironically wrote in the comments section of an obscure blog an attempt to mock a video by science agencies (FEMA/NIST): "Mock science sticks to social media and the comment sections of obscure blogs."
All of the excuses you give to dissuade yourself and latter-day lurker readers from watching three (3) minutes from a 2 hour video of 9/11 evidence made by FEMA/NIST is really astounding! You've spend most of your effort in ad hominem -- "the name of your online batman doesn't appear on the AE911truth list, so you are not a vetted AE911Truth member as claimed" -- rather than being objective and curious about a deviant 9/11 theory that addresses much larger swaths of the evidence including the FEMA/NIST video.
(I'll set aside your resemblance to Adam Ruff in arguments and game playing.) The common outcome is you shooting your integrity all to hell in your stubborness.
Is it cognitive dissonance that prevents you from studying 9/11 evidence objectively?
Or is it infiltration and part of the controlled opposition?
Or is it some mental dysfunction that you have all sorts of chops for low-level flame wars, but nothing in your arsenal to handle reasoned, articulated, substantiated positions?
Your reply is: "I am not interested."
You will be held to this. Prove your non-interest by not replying.
But if you are going to reply, do it to my top-level comment that has the URL to the 3 (three) minutes of video with FEMA/NIST cherry-picked evidence. Let's have you diplay there your willful ignorance and reluctance to consider any evidence that didn't get filtered through AE911Truth, and offer up some lame wild-ass crazy speculation on why AE911Truth doesn't have any write-up's on these 4+ (four) hours of FEMA/NIST cherry-picking of evidence.
//
2025-12-06
Your off-topic rant wasted your own precious time.
So sad!
x132 Craig McKee : I did not say that AE911Truth is controlled opposition
2025-12-05
Maxwell, I did not say that AE911Truth is controlled opposition. And I certainly did not suggest that the past unwillingness to look at the Pentagon evidence suggested this.
x134 Maxwell C. Bridges : AE911Truth most certainly was, and the receipts are all over the place
2025-12-05
Dear Mr. McKee, I agree that you probably never said that AE911Truth were a controlled opposition, because you had aspirations to continue to work with them. But what you don't say doesn't have to define the influence of AE911Truth that was less than ideal. AE911Truth most certainly was, and the receipts are all over the place.
You don't want to admit that the Pentagon treatment is one such receipt. I'll spare you the receipts in the form of shitty DEW and nuke debunkment. Why? Because WTC-4 (5 and 6) really exposes their controlled opposition handily. Specifically, if they are going to limit their considerations to the WTC, the fact that they never analyzed these three buildings with anything serious ought to be raising red flags.
//
x136 Maxwell C. Bridges : just three (3) minutes from just one (1) video and then just one (1) question
2025-12-02
https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/who-censored-pentagon-interview-on
Dear sincere 9/11 Truth seekers, The article from Mr. McKee about AE911Truth airs some dirty laundry, but it is Mr. McKee's earnest hope to save and improve AE911Truth.
I don't think AE911Truth can or should be saved. I wish it were otherwise. But for an organization to have "truth" in its name and to consistently and actively miss it? That takes a whole bunch of psyops.
The above statement might seem to poke you in the eyes, sincere truth seekers, but its foundation is proven with just three (3) minutes from just one (1) video and then attempting to answer just one (1) question.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
https://youtu.be/bOQOBIhxNEE?t=1736
Cued at 28:51 and watch for 3 minutes or so.
The anomaly in question is a box column of a WTC wall assembly that has a gash along 1/3 or more of its height that also slashes through the spandrel (thicker) area. The edges along either side of the gash were concave bowed into the hollow space.
HOW WAS THIS ANOMALY CREATED?
If this were at a foundry, the entire wall assembly could be put into a blast furnace for a measurable period of time to achieve volume heating that allows the metal sheet to more easily give way for the gash to be cut and metal bent.
Think the difference between a frozen full-sized Hershey's chocolate bar and one that has softened on a sunny kitchen table. The former doesn't even easily break off at its molded break lines, while the latter easily allows bending, twisting, and slicing.
9/11 doesn't have a blast furnace or a measurable period of time except the total 11 seconds of WTC tower destruction.
[A] Pick your favorite mechanism of WTC destruction. Examples:
- exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW) used in tandem (see my blog)
- nanothermite and/or chemical-based explosives
- DEW-from-afar from a plane or satellite
- deep underground (mini) nukes, 1 per tower.
- gravity-driven pile-driver
[B] The CHALLENGE is to logically explain how it was positioned, installed, configured to create the anomaly while also meeting other demolition criteria:
(a) distinct but muted detonation events,
(b) remnants of the inner tower core remained standing momentarily,
(c) dustification of concrete,
(d) disappearance of steel pans and trusses that supported floors,
(e) disappearance of office content, and
(f) other anomalies from video:
>>> 1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.
>>> 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.
===========================
Those from NIST who made the video, where is their analysis?
More to the point, where is AE911Truth's analysis?
Let's set aside when FOIA made this available (IMHO 2009) and use the date stamp of this associated YouTube posting, December 2013. For sure in 2014, many truthers would have been monitoring the release of anything 9/11, and would have informed AE911Truth. Thus using the more gracious 2013 date, seven (7) years from 2014 to 2021 was plenty of time for an AE911Truth analysis of the evidence depicted in the video.
AE911Truth was founded in 2006, and in a parallel fashion nothing worthwhile has been written up about WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6.
I am both a sincere seeker of Truth and a vetted member of AE911Truth (under my Bruce Wayne). From that learned position after decades, I see AE911Truth was destined to be a soft-hitting, milquetoast entity designed to give its woke science-literate membership a flag to rally around, an outlet for their ($$$) donations, and an excuse to side-line their individual DYI 9/11 endeavors, because official AE911Truth had more resources. Only to observe AE911Truth itself would slow-walk limited-hang-out tristes into existence as appeasement but not good science.
//
x138 Maxwell C. Bridges : None of the relevant evidence should be ignored.
2025-12-06
Dear sincere 9/11 Truth seekers, If you're reading this, hopefully you watched the 3 minutes from the second 2 hour video (URL in comment above). Don't be like Mr. Erich Maraite who claims to be a truther but isn't willing to even look on the truth.
Mr. Erich Maraite wrote: "See, this is a core tenet of fallacious conspiratorial theorizing: Explain that anomaly explain this anomaly... But your anomalies are mere cherry-picked curiosities."
Indeed, the anomalies were cherry-picked. It was FEMA and NIST who cherry-picked them; spray painted them with "save" while they were being loaded onto trailers at the WTC. Why did they choose them for further study? And just as importantly, why is Mr. Erich Maraite so eager to brush them off as insignificant when FEMA and NIST thought otherwise?
Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Mr. Erich Maraite wrote his distain for Dr. Griffin's notion: "This begs the question of what evidence is relevant."
Exactly. FEMA and NIST already made their determination with what they had saved and later videoed (and then if they did write about, it was never made public.)
As for AE911Truth, had they been a sincere and objective scientific organization, they would have written up an analysis of this evidence and made their proclamation about whether the evidence however anomalous was or was not relevant, and how nanothermite created it.
Mr. Erich Maraite wrote: "Among the prime tenets of the 'conspiracy theorist' is the habit of latching onto the LEAST relevant oddities and call them 'evidence'."
Among the prime tenets of controlled opposition, agents, and infiltrators to groups is the habit of IGNORING any and all oddities in the evidence pool and leave their group's general membership and the public without the benefit of a written report to explain why the evidence was or was not relevant.
Therefore, true "fallacious conspiratorial theorizing" is Mr. Erich Maraite dropping hypnotic suggestion to the readers that the "anomalies are mere cherry-picked curiosities" and not significant pieces of relevant evidence.
A "tell" of disinfo agents is their inability to be objective and sincere as proven by their reluctance to, say, go to a URL, read/watch its content, and discuss it rationally. They would be fools to not go to the URL and study the point or argument being made. The issue for the agents is that the content might not align with the agenda that they are paid to promote, they have no database of handy responses or analysis, and they don't have the research/analysis/thinking skills to take it on and address it. So the disinfo playbook has the agent play the ignorance game.
"We don't need to look at those cherry-picked pieces of evidence in the FOIA of the FEMA/NIST videos. If it is cherry-picked, it is sour. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks! Just like AE911Truth moved along and gave no consideration whatsoever to these 9/11 videos of evidence. Everything is as AE911Truth says it is. Your eyes are getting heavy. Your AE911Truth could do no wrong, and absolutely everything they did aligned with where ever the rabbit truth led. Not acknowledging anything in the cherry-picked FEMA/NIST video is aligned with their truth that they spent the AE911Truth budget marketing. AE911Truth gives Dr. David Ray Griffin the chops he deserves by telling us it is okay to ignore the irrelevant evidence. You can't see any videos when your eyes are closed. When I snap my fingers, you will awake and have an urge to eat cherries."
//
<- hide above -->
Part 4: Disinformation Mexican Stand-off
These are just some posting ideas designed to push objectivity, get engagement, and bring enlightenment despite cognitive dissonance kicking in big-time. These were left open-ended, because the participant is expected to speculate about their favored 9/11 mechanism of destruction applied to the three (3) minutes of the video depicting a box column from a WTC wall assembling exhibiting a large gash.
For those interested in how exotic nukes of the FGNW variety explain this anomaly (and others in the video), refer to Part 2: FGNW Discussions with Reese Erch-Guy and specifically the comment (x78) "The analogy is a full-sized Hershey's chocolate bar" (2025-11-03). That comment will be copied-edited-and-pasted into future responses to these challenges.
x140 Maxwell C. Bridges : Evidence favors FGNW
2025-11-13
Imagine the Mexican stand-off with these secondary psyops narratives of 9/11 Truth trying to explain the WTC destruction:
- Nano-thermite (NT); or chemical-based explosives that may or may not be mixed with NT.
- DEW-from-afar; or Woodsian-DEW. A directed energy weapon (DEW) located at a distance from the WTC towers, either airborne or satellite.
- "Mini-nukes"; or deep underground nukes. Essentially a single nuclear device per WTC tower.
Each disinfo narrative must speculate into installation scenarios to account for:
- The pulverization of concrete floors and the disappearance of metal pans and trusses that supported the floors, as well as office furnishings. How did this overkill pulverization come about: planned or accidental?
- The observed timing and stages of the WTC tower destruction. Specifically, the destruction originated from within the towers near the plane impact levels, and destroyed the 20+ stories above that level. How would DEW-from-afar or deep underground nukes direct their energy to accomplish this?
- MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: The six time-stamps of anomalies recorded by NIST/FEMA at Fresh Kills salvage yard.
This video is very long and worth watching wearing lens of each of the secondary pysops narratives (NT, DEW, mini-nukes) to see if they apply. However, to save your sanity, choose one or more anomalies from those six time-stamps.
NOTE: I promote a theory that would be the equivalent of the illegitimate offspring of DEW and mini-nukes that in the past I've called "nuclear-DEW" and more recently "exotic FGNW" (fourth generation nuclear weapons). Try studying the anomalies in the video with this lens as well.
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.
>>> 1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.
>>> 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.
++++++ WTC-4 Analysis Bonus
This blog posting "Exotika 911 Blackhole #4" about the WTC-4 has a companion vido.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2024/12/exotika-911-blackhole-4.html
The video isn't very long (<15 minutes). This is the "9 11 1st Tower Collapse WTC2 Compilation Raw Footage".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfphCLtUUI
How do the (NT, DEW, mini-nukes) disinfo psyops secondary narratives explain WTC-4?
++++++ Evidence favors FGNW
Why the WTC evidence favors FGNW (over nanothermite)
- Fingerprints of fission in two different dust reports, one by USGS.
- Fingerprints of fusion in the flawed and scope-limited tritium report.
- The massive energy sink represented by dustifying concrete floors.
- The radiation leaching off of the debris pile and select pieces at the reclamation site; caught on video tape of high quality NIST and FEMA equipment.
- The banning of phones, cameras, and Geiger counters from Ground Zero.
- The prevention of normal investigations by qualified personnel.
- The duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- The continual generation of metalic particles in the air measured months later.
- The clean-up efforts that resembled radiation mitigation techniques.
- The audio signature (muted). Even exotic chemical based weapons (say, mixed with NT) use a blast wave as part of its destructive output, and this represents a deafening audio signature.
- WTC-4 was going up in smoke while WTC-2's "smashing" wall assemblies were still in the air. Ditto for WTC-6's crater with respect to WTC-1.
- Logistics of FGNW: assuming the size of fire extinguishers, mounting brackets and wiring could be installed right under the noses of bomb-sniffing dogs. Later over the weekend, the actual devices could be affixed to the mounting brackets. I guess four FGNW per detonation level aimed upwards and mounted on outside walls of the inner core (because of the spire artifact), and 6-10 detonation levels for each tower. WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, WTC-7 could have had 6-12 all positioned at ground level and aimed upwards.
++++ Nanothermite (NT) disinformation
- Nanothermite is an incidiary, not an explosive.
- NT takes effort to ignite, lessons from Jon Cole.
- To get the observed brisance of the WTC tower destruction, Dr. Jones said "NT was mixed with something else like RDX."
- Dr. Jones said: "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." NT could only be lamely associated with 6 spikes in off-gassing of the debris pile.
- Logistics of NT: If NT is installed on every floor, that's pretty labor intensive. If every other n-th floor, then more blast wave is required to achieve destruction, but this then increases the audio signature above what was recorded. Just on the two towers, this dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
- Champions of NT don't even attempt to explain WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.
//
x142 Maxwell C. Bridges : three (3) minutes from just one (1) video
2025-12-04
https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/who-censored-pentagon-interview-on
https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435
Dear sincere truth seekers, if you want new perspective of 9/11, study just three (3) minutes from just one (1) video and then attempt to answer just one (1) question.
NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
https://youtu.be/bOQOBIhxNEE?t=1736
Cued at 28:51 and watch for 3 minutes or so.
The anomaly in question is a box column of a WTC wall assembly that has a gash along 1/3 or more of its height that also slashes through the spandrel (thicker) area. The edges along either side of the gash were concave bowed into the hollow space.
HOW WAS THIS ANOMALY CREATED?
That's it. It if you approached earnestly the watching of the 3 minutes of the video and contemplated how the anomaly was created, your new perspective should arrive.
===== Concepts to Consider
If this were at a foundry, the entire wall assembly could be put into a blast furnace for a measurable period of time to achieve volume heating that allows the metal sheet to more easily give way for the gash to be cut and metal bent.
Think the difference between a frozen full-sized Hershey's chocolate bar and one that has softened on a sunny kitchen table. The former doesn't even easily break off at its molded break lines, while the latter easily allows bending, twisting, and slicing.
9/11 doesn't have a blast furnace or a measurable period of time except the total 11 seconds of WTC tower destruction.
[A] Pick your favorite mechanism of WTC destruction. Examples:
- exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW) used in tandem (see pinned posting on my FB wall or my blog)
- nanothermite and/or chemical-based explosives
- DEW-from-afar from a plane or satellite
- deep underground (mini) nukes, 1 per tower.
- gravity-driven pile-driver
- Jedi with light sabers
[B] The CHALLENGE is to logically explain how your mechanism of destruction was positioned, installed, configured to create the anomaly while also meeting other demolition criteria:
(a) distinct but muted detonation events,
(b) remnants of the inner tower core remained standing momentarily,
(c) dustification of concrete,
(d) disappearance of steel pans and trusses that supported floors,
(e) disappearance of office content, and
(f) other anomalies from video:
>>> 1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.
>>> 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.
===========================
Those from NIST who made the video, where is their analysis?
More to the point, where is AE911Truth's analysis?
If we use the December 2013 data stamp of this YouTube posting, then seven (7) years from 2014 to 2021 was plenty of time for an AE911Truth analysis of the evidence depicted in the video.
AE911Truth was founded in 2006, and in a parallel fashion nothing worthwhile has been written up about WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6.
I am both a sincere seeker of Truth and a vetted member of AE911Truth (under my Bruce Wayne). From that learned position after decades, I see AE911Truth was destined to be a soft-hitting, milquetoast entity designed to give its woke science-literate membership a flag to rally around, an outlet for their ($$$) donations, and an excuse to side-line their individual DYI 9/11 endeavors, because official AE911Truth had more resources. Only to observe AE911Truth itself would slow-walk limited-hang-out tristes into existence as appeasement but not good science.
//
<- hide above -->
No comments:
Post a Comment