The following is my comment to his article, which has been ruthlessly caste away into the bit-bucket of the Ethernet. Except for this copy-and-paste below:
++++
Dear Mr. Richard Gage, It is quite fitting that your guest, Maximillian Rupert, professor at the Technical University of Ingolstadt, is quoted as saying:
"We instantly knew. This (9/11 WTC destruction) had to have been facilitated through a planned explosion however this was accomplished. But we instantly knew: They were brought down in a controlled manner."
So did I. The energy alone of the towers' decimation through their paths of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration while also violently ejecting heavy content laterally are huge energy sinks that scream (for ease of implementation) "exotic nuclear weapons."
My Bruce Wayne has been a vetted AE9/11Truth petition signer since the get-go. Hence my profound disappointment when AE9/11Truth's scientific speculation did not take research in the energy-source directions the evidence suggested. [Yes, Dr. Wood's disinfo effort connects no dots, draws no conclusions, did a shitty job of nuclear research (just like Dr. Steven Jones), let DEW get framed as beams-from-above. Still, DEW is closer to the truth than NT. Nuclear-powered DEW.]
As a fair and generous fellow, I will give you, Mr. Gage, up front the answer, the solution, and the only honorable way out of the predicament that AE9/11Truth has been kicking down the road for literally decades.
Publicly apologize and correct the record. You could write something like:
"Seeded by the analysis by Mr. MCB that rested on Dr. Andre Gsponer's career's work in nuclear physics, my re-evaluation of the totality of the 9/11 WTC destruction and the evidence -- so much of it never acknowledged or addressed by the hypothesis of NT mixed with chemical-based explosives -- has led me to change my opinion about the possibility of FGNW exotic nuclear weapon involvement."
There is nothing shameful in admitting you were wrong and correcting the record.
However, there will be shame and loads of "figurative" nuclear fall-out (to go around) if you don't get ahead of this with your apology.
If you're tempted to throw into this discussion the AE9/11Truth FAQ that debunks "nuclear blasts", don't even bother. As one of many Easter Eggs in my referenced and substantiated work, reference note [8] points out the scope-limiting and stilting of that FAQ. Other Easter Eggs include debunking NT, debunking Dr. Wood, and debunking Dr. Jones from two (2) different directions.
BTW, I agree with AE9/11Truth's FAQ's conclusion that "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC," because 80% of the nuclear yield of late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) [used in tandem] is in the form of highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion, such as cone-shaped and upwards from point of ignition. The effect of these highly energetic neutrons passing through materials will be quite different -- visually, audibly, and radiation signature -- from the strawman 1st-3rd gen old style nukes. Only 20% of the already-tactical nuclear yield was in the form of heat-wave, blast-wave, and EMP.
Here are some of the issues that you have:
- Evidence of Fission in everybody's dust tables. (NT doesn't address Uranium and its decay elements.)
- Evidence of Fusion, which the tritium reports prove. (NT doesn't address tritium.)
- Evidence of Very Hot Heat Sources that continually re-generated coarse particles. (The amount of NT/chemical-explosive that would be unspent from its pulverizing purposes and available to maintain the hot-spots calculates -- according to high school math and chemistry -- into an obscenely massive overkill amount that logistically ain't very Occam Razor.)
- Evidence of Radiation in the Video/Digital Recordings of the debris pile and the scrap yards.
- Evidence of Steel Anomalies that NT (with conventional explosives) champions do not even attempt to explain, much less justification for why. [With FGNW, these anomalies are side-effects of the excess energy available, and weren't necessarily design goals.]
Among my Batman superpowers is persistence.
I've been "shopping" my 9/11 FGNW premise around for years in the hopes of it getting legitimately debunked, and I've collected over four (4) volumes of such efforts on my blog. They include discussions with David Chandler and Wayne Coste, neither of whom faired well: discredited their own integrity and objectivity. A more recent discussion was with Gene Laratonda, who thought he could debunk a newer FGNW premise with an older six (6) point copy-and-paste job originally aimed at malframed 1st-through-3rd gen nukes. Alas, as could be expected, each point was addressed and discredited as not being gating.
Fair and generous fellow that I am, I encourage you to take this comment seriously. Don't just follow the links; follow the white rabbit into the reference notes and then into the source material. My work includes the important essence of Jeff Prager's dust analysis, unlike your FAQ that could only cherry-pick inconsequential "language usage" and character-assassinate from its wonky footnotes/endnotes.
I repeat, the honorable response is to public apologize and correct the record.
Truth -- in particular this Truth that 9/11 had nuclear components -- isn't going away even if championed by this "lone-nut (batman)".
The above is not the intended version, because substack postings do not support embedded Javascript. Thus, all of the reference notes, which are Javascript-enabled, have their Easter Eggs hidden with no way to expose.
{mcb: This comment was deleted from the article and I was blocked.}
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, Enjoyed your personal 9/11 history. Look forward to reading part 2.
On MST on 9/11, I was on my way to work when I heard rumors waiting for the light rail of NPR reports of the WTC crash. The concern for some of the other passengers is that down-town Denver has also a "World Trade Center" building, and fear was generated that it, too, might be a target.
I work in technology that required and depended on the internet, so while at work I was able to use their big data pipes and web surf to get information. Normal forum rules were suspended for various professional online groups that I monitored, and 9/11 discussion happened. I had (ultimately unfulfilled) expectations that within a few months to a year's time, government scientific agencies would publish believable explanations into the anomalous destructions, that screamed of OVERKILL energy. Meanwhile, my main concern in the online forums was to curtain the saber-rattling and to temper the "march to war" with questions into the alleged perpetrators.
Your article above states: "When asked by Jennifer Abel of the Hartford Advocate why there was no attempt to look for evidence of explosives in the WTC wreckage, A NIST spokesperson named Michael Newman responded that there was no need for that since the investigators knew there was no such evidence present."
Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists interpret this as a cop-out for not doing their investigative jobs properly. It is certainly a good cover-up technique, because you cannot find explosive residue if you don't go looking for it.
This non-investigative action seems strange, though, because discovered residue of chemical explosives, that just about any country has, would have helped the ruse by being able to scape-goat others... [Up until the logistics is considered for installing an obscenely massive amount during just a few days of bomb-sniffing-dog holiday.]
However, the statement "the investigators knew there was no such evidence present" might be truer than realized.
For example, if leadership over the investigation knew the actual mechanisms of destruction were not in fact chemical explosives, maybe because they were told such by those who orchestrated the operation and wanted to stall all forms of legitimate investigation, then:
(a) Looking for known-non-existent explosive residue would be a Fool's errand, a waste of resources.
(b) Not finding explosive residue during the investigation but having to officially report this now proven fact, could be just as damning to the 9/11 ruse. Legitimate Newtonian Physics questions would be asked about: The overkill pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while violently ejecting laterally heavy wall assemblies and representing a huge energy sink that gravity alone can't explain. What mechanisms of destruction have lots of excess energy and don't leave an explosive residue?
And thus we get to my 9/11 hobby-horse: FGNW exotic nuclear weapons.
You'll want to follow the white rabbit of truth beyond my substack to my blog, because the blog version has working references with awesome Easter Eggs.
Spoiler: a few of the reference notes expose the disinformation of Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood.
If you don't want to discuss this deviant "neu nookiedoo" hobby-horse here, I understand. You can comment on my substack or blog (with the former having the superior commenting abilities).
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, I have Dr. Wood's book and recommend it, in part because it is clever disinformation with lots of nuggets of truth to be mined. She connects no dots, draws no conclusions, can't power her speculation with anything real-world operational, did a shitty job of nuclear research, and repeatedly tells her readers to look at the evidence and not what people (including herself) are saying.
The Woodsian-DEWers get tripped up in these fundamental areas.
(1) They let the DEW premise be framed almost exclusively as "beams-from-above" (despite issues with atmospheric optics, frequencies conducive for energy transfer, and energy sources). ABL is a real thing, but getting the requisite amount of source materials (e.g., chemicals) aloft (let alone into space) that can account for the energy display observed at the WTC is completely, obscenely NOT Occam Razor, when local FGNW are in the category of DEW with nuclear energy to spare.
(2) Woodsian-DEWers argue as if Dr. Wood's book were a "9/11 end-station" while at the same time praising the fact that SHE DRAWS NO CONCLUSIONS. They can't have it both ways. If Dr. Wood has no conclusions, then she can't be an end-station.
(3) If Woodsian-DEWers were sincere, they would be standing on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work to take it to the next logical level, going to the next station on the rabbit-hole subway express to Truth. To power their DEW dreams, the Woodsian-DEWers would have been hooking up with the 9/11-Nukers to champion together the evil spawn, FGNW.
But Woodsian-DEWers aren't sincere. They don't learn, grow, or evolve.
Case in point, Ms. 9/11 Revisionist already has me blocked on substack just for me pointing out the above, and that FGNW, being in the category of DEW, are what Dr. Wood's research aspired towards but was warned off exposing. I ran across her in FB under a different alias, and the script was almost identical.
The first hop of the white-rabbit of Truth is from here to my substack. Your desire to see the references will have you hop to my rabbit-hole blog. The Easter Eggs are in the reference notes, so be sure to expand whenever you run across one. Spoiler alert: Reference note 22 debunks Dr. Wood. Reference note 8 debunks AE9/11Truth's FAQ about "nuclear blasts." Reference notes 14, 15, and "nano-thermite" debunk Dr. Steven Jones.
Did you see what happened in a parallel thread with Mr. Adam Ruff? He brags about "refusing to read" my postings and also has me substack blocked. Good for him, because our documented history -- re-purposed on my blog -- shows how he was a lying blowhard weasel on the topics of Dr. Wood and my "neu nookiedoo" hobby-horse premise. ["Neutron Nuclear DEW" was how I once described it.]
And just today, I tried to post something on Richard Gage's substack article. It got deleted already from his substack. So I re-purposed the comment under my substack article. The "black-holing" of nuclear 9/11 premises is alive and well.
I would be most appreciative to get your feedback.
NOT HERE, but under my substack or blog.
Out of respect for Mr. McKee, who doesn't value what (validated) 9/11 nuclear premises can do for the public's awareness and activism. As you'll see from collected exchanges with him on my blog (if you go exploring/skimming just how deep my "bat-shit crazy" runs), I expressed to him that a public revelation of "9/11 nuclear anything" (regardless of the spin of it being "low-radiation") could/would/should have FIGURATIVE nuclear fallout even today on elected leaders (then and now), agencies, institutions, corporate media, etc. Hence the "black-hole" cover-up still going today.
//
Jeffrey Strahl
Writes Lockdown Times
Thanks, but no thanks. I had more than enough dealings with her personally, i.e. via email daily and several hour-plus phone conversations per week, for a year and a half. She has nothing to stand on, period.
Maxwell C. Bridges
Writes Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, I share your pain, but only limited to Facebook -- not email or telephone.
I agree that Ms. 9/11 Revisionist has nothing to stand on; she's got cognitive dissonance really bad and refuses to acknowledge that Dr. Wood's work was not an end-station, so shouldn't be promoted and defended as if it were.
My FGNW premise is different, and won't be nearly as much of a time-suck. It certainly won't be bot-ish repetition.
I am sincere in desiring your feedback on my FGNW hobby-horse premise.
A year and a half of daily emails and several hour-plus phone conversations per week?!!! Wow! Respect. I wouldn't give out my telephone number for that. Emails? Maybe, but I'm lazy and won't tolerate new carousel spins.
I'm only asking for a one-time reading (5 minutes) and commentary into my FGNW premises issues.
//
Jeffrey Strahl
Writes Lockdown Times
No evidence of electric pulses which nukes would generate. Period.
Maxwell C. Bridges
Writes Maxwell C. Bridges
Incorrect. Go read my premise next time before making stupid mistakes.
Section "Evidence in WTC Destruction" in the blog version has a bullet for "torched cars" that suffices to prove evidence of EMP. "Period."
//
Jeffrey Strahl
Writes Lockdown Times
Torched cars prove an EMP? LOL. By the way, those torched cars were TOWED to their locations from where they initially were, near the WTC. Judy Wod tried to use that as proof of a DEW. Buzz off.
{mcb: comment near the end of an exchange with Mr. Jeffrey.}
Dearest Mr. Jeffrey Strahl thinks that blocking me on substack helps with both his arguments and his integrity.
His comment is wrong (again.) He wrote: "those torched cars were TOWED to their locations from where they initially were, near the WTC."
What torched cars is Mr. Jeffrey Strahl referring to?
I bet Mr. Jeffrey Strahl was referring to the torched cars from Dr. Wood's book/website that shows some of them at the bridge, where indeed many had been towed from other locations where they were originally toasted.
However, my substack/blog article under the "Evidence in WTC Destruction" section has a bulleted list whose last item is a reference "torched cars" that expands and shows you torched cars near WTC-7 along West Broadway. They were not towed there. The time of the photograph was before WTC-7 came down and is in the picture.
Let me highlight for latter-day lurker-readers that this failing of Mr. Jeffrey Strahl to address the pictorial evidence from my blog article, means that HE.HAS.STILL.NOT.READ.IT. Another tactic that helps neither his arguments nor his integrity.
Not being able to follow links, expand "see more..." expansion, or reference note toggles is a major bot tell that both Ms. 9/11 Revisionist and Mr. Jeffrey Strahl exhibit.
Mr. Jeffrey Strahl wrote (poorly): "Judy Wod tried to use that as proof of a DEW."
That may very well be the case that Dr. Judy Wood used the bridge vehicles as proof of her "beams-from-above" DEW, and maybe should be considered as a built-in self-discrediting Easter Egg in Dr. Wood's disinfo work that she was informed about and should have corrected before transferring from her website into her book.
However, in a bot-miss, I'm not using bridge torched cars to make my FGNW (DEW) case... Except that images exist of the numbered police car with trunk open in its original location for (EMP) torching. [And if I were championing 9/11 beams-from-above -- which I'm not --, ABL could indeed account for the torched cars at their original locations.]
Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's substack articles had me almost believing his authenticity. Maybe he still is on the pandemic front. His output there seems engaging... oops, but not I'm blocked from ever doing so.
Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's 9/11 arguments, tactics, and beliefs need to evolve.
Except. Well... I was amazed at Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's prolific postings in his substack's brief three (3) month history. [I was thinking the same thing about Ms. 9/11 Revisionist's sudden collection of entries.] There are only three ways that prolific output can be achieved, in my professional opinion.
- The material was largely written in advance, and was simply queued up to appear when it did.
- Using a ChatGPT bot service, an article could be easily generated, proofread, and posted on his substack schedule.
- Least likely is a single person writing and publishing on that substack schedule (almost daily).
I'm again reminded of Mr. HybridRogue1, who was unintentionally caught manning a weak and stilted "contra-sockpuppet" (e.g., "AWright") who'd argue poorly for OCT so that Mr. HybridRogue1 could straw-man destroy OCT to build up his 9/11 truther-credentials. Went on sporatically for years, mostly to distract and flood the comment section from a more important conversaion.
In this case, Ms. 9/11 Revisionist seems the bot for Woodsian-DEW, repeating weak arguments I've encountered many times. Most remarkable was that the script and logic from a different Facebook entity (2023-09) was near identical to Ms. 9/11 Revisionist's recent discussion with me... until she blocked me and deleted our exchange from her substack.
Riding Ms. 9/11 Revisionist's Woodsian-DEW carousel diligently in a debunking capacity, we have Mr. Jeffrey Strahl. He bragged: "I had more than enough dealings with (Ms. 9/11 Revisionist) personally, i.e. via email daily and several hour-plus phone conversations per week, for a year and a half."
My naive and trusting superpowers give me no reason to doubt Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's previous time commitment with Ms. 9/11 Revisionist, but I do have reason to doubt that they would still have much to write to each other when she promotes fresh Woodsian-DEW carousel spins... Unless they spent that time coordinating.
I have reason to question why Ms. 9/11 Revisionist and Mr. Jeffrey Strahl did not MUTUALLY BLOCK each other long ago and early in their discussion. Within a scant-full of days of my exchanges with each of them, they both opted to block me, instead of rationally considering my arguments further. [Mr. Richard Gage deleted my comment before the afternoon was done.] "Considering" is a big word in this instance, because their canned answers for/against Woodsian-DEW get tripped up for doing nothing to address "neu nookiedoo." FGNW is different.
Another sign of bot-ism and agent-ism is when it takes cycles of cajoling to get them to supposedly follow a link and review a given reference, and in the end with their algorithms/agenda exposed in their final "buzz off" comments, they still won't have let spill any wisdom good or bad specific from the reference. On the flip-side when you go to their substack to offer reasoned on-topic critique to their work for them to defend... ultimately blocking and deletion. Pretty quickly in this case. As if they already knew me! [El-oh-el.]
Blocking and deletion hides that their algorithms and agenda cannot defend their premises and have no arguments to defeat my neu-nookiedoo hobby-horse... owing to its high percentage of 9/11 evidence addressing and more nuggets of Truth, and our legacy proving we traveled the high road.
In conclusion, the Woodsian threads here are looking a bit Helgian Dialectic: two (2) ChatGPT bots controlled by disinfo agent(s) arguing against one another following their pre-arranged script.
Here's a great example about "black-holing" an uncomfortable topic. Richard Gage, formerly of AE9/11Truth posted a new article to his substack.
https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/german-phd-structural-engineer-physics
The following is my comment to his article, which has been ruthlessly caste away into the bit-bucket of the Ethernet. Except for this copy-and-paste below:
++++
Dear Mr. Richard Gage, It is quite fitting that your guest, Maximillian Rupert, professor at the Technical University of Ingolstadt, is quoted as saying:
"We instantly knew. This (9/11 WTC destruction) had to have been facilitated through a planned explosion however this was accomplished. But we instantly knew: They were brought down in a controlled manner."
So did I. The energy alone of the towers' decimation through their paths of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration while also violently ejecting heavy content laterally are huge energy sinks that scream (for ease of implementation) "exotic nuclear weapons."
My Bruce Wayne has been a vetted AE9/11Truth petition signer since the get-go. Hence my profound disappointment when AE9/11Truth's scientific speculation did not take research in the energy-source directions the evidence suggested. [Yes, Dr. Wood's disinfo effort connects no dots, draws no conclusions, did a shitty job of nuclear research (just like Dr. Steven Jones), let DEW get framed as beams-from-above. Still, DEW is closer to the truth than NT. Nuclear-powered DEW.]
As a fair and generous fellow, I will give you, Mr. Gage, up front the answer, the solution, and the only honorable way out of the predicament that AE9/11Truth has been kicking down the road for literally decades.
Publicly apologize and correct the record. You could write something like:
"Seeded by the analysis by Mr. MCB that rested on Dr. Andre Gsponer's career's work in nuclear physics, my re-evaluation of the totality of the 9/11 WTC destruction and the evidence -- so much of it never acknowledged or addressed by the hypothesis of NT mixed with chemical-based explosives -- has led me to change my opinion about the possibility of FGNW exotic nuclear weapon involvement."
There is nothing shameful in admitting you were wrong and correcting the record.
However, there will be shame and loads of "figurative" nuclear fall-out (to go around) if you don't get ahead of this with your apology.
If you're tempted to throw into this discussion the AE9/11Truth FAQ that debunks "nuclear blasts", don't even bother. As one of many Easter Eggs in my referenced and substantiated work, reference note [8] points out the scope-limiting and stilting of that FAQ. Other Easter Eggs include debunking NT, debunking Dr. Wood, and debunking Dr. Jones from two (2) different directions.
https://maxwellcbridges.substack.com/p/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
BTW, I agree with AE9/11Truth's FAQ's conclusion that "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC," because 80% of the nuclear yield of late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) [used in tandem] is in the form of highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion, such as cone-shaped and upwards from point of ignition. The effect of these highly energetic neutrons passing through materials will be quite different -- visually, audibly, and radiation signature -- from the strawman 1st-3rd gen old style nukes. Only 20% of the already-tactical nuclear yield was in the form of heat-wave, blast-wave, and EMP.
Here are some of the issues that you have:
- Evidence of Fission in everybody's dust tables. (NT doesn't address Uranium and its decay elements.)
- Evidence of Fusion, which the tritium reports prove. (NT doesn't address tritium.)
- Evidence of Very Hot Heat Sources that continually re-generated coarse particles. (The amount of NT/chemical-explosive that would be unspent from its pulverizing purposes and available to maintain the hot-spots calculates -- according to high school math and chemistry -- into an obscenely massive overkill amount that logistically ain't very Occam Razor.)
- Evidence of Radiation in the Video/Digital Recordings of the debris pile and the scrap yards.
- Evidence of Steel Anomalies that NT (with conventional explosives) champions do not even attempt to explain, much less justification for why. [With FGNW, these anomalies are side-effects of the excess energy available, and weren't necessarily design goals.]
Among my Batman superpowers is persistence.
I've been "shopping" my 9/11 FGNW premise around for years in the hopes of it getting legitimately debunked, and I've collected over four (4) volumes of such efforts on my blog. They include discussions with David Chandler and Wayne Coste, neither of whom faired well: discredited their own integrity and objectivity. A more recent discussion was with Gene Laratonda, who thought he could debunk a newer FGNW premise with an older six (6) point copy-and-paste job originally aimed at malframed 1st-through-3rd gen nukes. Alas, as could be expected, each point was addressed and discredited as not being gating.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/fgnw-discussions-vol-4.html
Fair and generous fellow that I am, I encourage you to take this comment seriously. Don't just follow the links; follow the white rabbit into the reference notes and then into the source material. My work includes the important essence of Jeff Prager's dust analysis, unlike your FAQ that could only cherry-pick inconsequential "language usage" and character-assassinate from its wonky footnotes/endnotes.
I repeat, the honorable response is to public apologize and correct the record.
Truth -- in particular this Truth that 9/11 had nuclear components -- isn't going away even if championed by this "lone-nut (batman)".
//
The above is not the intended version, because substack postings do not support embedded Javascript. Thus, all of the reference notes, which are Javascript-enabled, have their Easter Eggs hidden with no way to expose.
Here is the intended version:
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html
//
In reference to: https://jeffreystrahl.substack.com/p/from-911-to-311-part-1
2023-09-08
by Jeffrey Strahl
{mcb: This comment was deleted from the article and I was blocked.}
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, Enjoyed your personal 9/11 history. Look forward to reading part 2.
On MST on 9/11, I was on my way to work when I heard rumors waiting for the light rail of NPR reports of the WTC crash. The concern for some of the other passengers is that down-town Denver has also a "World Trade Center" building, and fear was generated that it, too, might be a target.
I work in technology that required and depended on the internet, so while at work I was able to use their big data pipes and web surf to get information. Normal forum rules were suspended for various professional online groups that I monitored, and 9/11 discussion happened. I had (ultimately unfulfilled) expectations that within a few months to a year's time, government scientific agencies would publish believable explanations into the anomalous destructions, that screamed of OVERKILL energy. Meanwhile, my main concern in the online forums was to curtain the saber-rattling and to temper the "march to war" with questions into the alleged perpetrators.
Your article above states: "When asked by Jennifer Abel of the Hartford Advocate why there was no attempt to look for evidence of explosives in the WTC wreckage, A NIST spokesperson named Michael Newman responded that there was no need for that since the investigators knew there was no such evidence present."
Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists interpret this as a cop-out for not doing their investigative jobs properly. It is certainly a good cover-up technique, because you cannot find explosive residue if you don't go looking for it.
This non-investigative action seems strange, though, because discovered residue of chemical explosives, that just about any country has, would have helped the ruse by being able to scape-goat others... [Up until the logistics is considered for installing an obscenely massive amount during just a few days of bomb-sniffing-dog holiday.]
However, the statement "the investigators knew there was no such evidence present" might be truer than realized.
For example, if leadership over the investigation knew the actual mechanisms of destruction were not in fact chemical explosives, maybe because they were told such by those who orchestrated the operation and wanted to stall all forms of legitimate investigation, then:
(a) Looking for known-non-existent explosive residue would be a Fool's errand, a waste of resources.
(b) Not finding explosive residue during the investigation but having to officially report this now proven fact, could be just as damning to the 9/11 ruse. Legitimate Newtonian Physics questions would be asked about: The overkill pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while violently ejecting laterally heavy wall assemblies and representing a huge energy sink that gravity alone can't explain. What mechanisms of destruction have lots of excess energy and don't leave an explosive residue?
And thus we get to my 9/11 hobby-horse: FGNW exotic nuclear weapons.
You'll want to follow the white rabbit of truth beyond my substack to my blog, because the blog version has working references with awesome Easter Eggs.
https://maxwellcbridges.substack.com/p/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons
Spoiler: a few of the reference notes expose the disinformation of Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood.
If you don't want to discuss this deviant "neu nookiedoo" hobby-horse here, I understand. You can comment on my substack or blog (with the former having the superior commenting abilities).
//
Under the posting https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/the-assassination-of-a-movement-the
by Craig McKee (2023-10-10)
+++
{mcb: exchanges at the above link}
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, I have Dr. Wood's book and recommend it, in part because it is clever disinformation with lots of nuggets of truth to be mined. She connects no dots, draws no conclusions, can't power her speculation with anything real-world operational, did a shitty job of nuclear research, and repeatedly tells her readers to look at the evidence and not what people (including herself) are saying.
The Woodsian-DEWers get tripped up in these fundamental areas.
(1) They let the DEW premise be framed almost exclusively as "beams-from-above" (despite issues with atmospheric optics, frequencies conducive for energy transfer, and energy sources). ABL is a real thing, but getting the requisite amount of source materials (e.g., chemicals) aloft (let alone into space) that can account for the energy display observed at the WTC is completely, obscenely NOT Occam Razor, when local FGNW are in the category of DEW with nuclear energy to spare.
(2) Woodsian-DEWers argue as if Dr. Wood's book were a "9/11 end-station" while at the same time praising the fact that SHE DRAWS NO CONCLUSIONS. They can't have it both ways. If Dr. Wood has no conclusions, then she can't be an end-station.
(3) If Woodsian-DEWers were sincere, they would be standing on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work to take it to the next logical level, going to the next station on the rabbit-hole subway express to Truth. To power their DEW dreams, the Woodsian-DEWers would have been hooking up with the 9/11-Nukers to champion together the evil spawn, FGNW.
But Woodsian-DEWers aren't sincere. They don't learn, grow, or evolve.
Case in point, Ms. 9/11 Revisionist already has me blocked on substack just for me pointing out the above, and that FGNW, being in the category of DEW, are what Dr. Wood's research aspired towards but was warned off exposing. I ran across her in FB under a different alias, and the script was almost identical.
The first hop of the white-rabbit of Truth is from here to my substack. Your desire to see the references will have you hop to my rabbit-hole blog. The Easter Eggs are in the reference notes, so be sure to expand whenever you run across one. Spoiler alert: Reference note 22 debunks Dr. Wood. Reference note 8 debunks AE9/11Truth's FAQ about "nuclear blasts." Reference notes 14, 15, and "nano-thermite" debunk Dr. Steven Jones.
https://maxwellcbridges.substack.com/p/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons
Did you see what happened in a parallel thread with Mr. Adam Ruff? He brags about "refusing to read" my postings and also has me substack blocked. Good for him, because our documented history -- re-purposed on my blog -- shows how he was a lying blowhard weasel on the topics of Dr. Wood and my "neu nookiedoo" hobby-horse premise. ["Neutron Nuclear DEW" was how I once described it.]
And just today, I tried to post something on Richard Gage's substack article. It got deleted already from his substack. So I re-purposed the comment under my substack article. The "black-holing" of nuclear 9/11 premises is alive and well.
I would be most appreciative to get your feedback.
NOT HERE, but under my substack or blog.
Out of respect for Mr. McKee, who doesn't value what (validated) 9/11 nuclear premises can do for the public's awareness and activism. As you'll see from collected exchanges with him on my blog (if you go exploring/skimming just how deep my "bat-shit crazy" runs), I expressed to him that a public revelation of "9/11 nuclear anything" (regardless of the spin of it being "low-radiation") could/would/should have FIGURATIVE nuclear fallout even today on elected leaders (then and now), agencies, institutions, corporate media, etc. Hence the "black-hole" cover-up still going today.
//
Jeffrey Strahl
Writes Lockdown Times
Thanks, but no thanks. I had more than enough dealings with her personally, i.e. via email daily and several hour-plus phone conversations per week, for a year and a half. She has nothing to stand on, period.
Maxwell C. Bridges
Writes Maxwell C. Bridges
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Strahl, I share your pain, but only limited to Facebook -- not email or telephone.
I agree that Ms. 9/11 Revisionist has nothing to stand on; she's got cognitive dissonance really bad and refuses to acknowledge that Dr. Wood's work was not an end-station, so shouldn't be promoted and defended as if it were.
My FGNW premise is different, and won't be nearly as much of a time-suck. It certainly won't be bot-ish repetition.
I am sincere in desiring your feedback on my FGNW hobby-horse premise.
https://maxwellcbridges.substack.com/p/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons
A year and a half of daily emails and several hour-plus phone conversations per week?!!! Wow! Respect. I wouldn't give out my telephone number for that. Emails? Maybe, but I'm lazy and won't tolerate new carousel spins.
I'm only asking for a one-time reading (5 minutes) and commentary into my FGNW premises issues.
//
Jeffrey Strahl
Writes Lockdown Times
No evidence of electric pulses which nukes would generate. Period.
Maxwell C. Bridges
Writes Maxwell C. Bridges
Incorrect. Go read my premise next time before making stupid mistakes.
Section "Evidence in WTC Destruction" in the blog version has a bullet for "torched cars" that suffices to prove evidence of EMP. "Period."
//
Jeffrey Strahl
Writes Lockdown Times
Torched cars prove an EMP? LOL. By the way, those torched cars were TOWED to their locations from where they initially were, near the WTC. Judy Wod tried to use that as proof of a DEW. Buzz off.
Under the posting https://thoughtcrimesandmisdemeanors.substack.com/p/the-assassination-of-a-movement-the
by Craig McKee (2023-10-10)
++++
{mcb: comment near the end of an exchange with Mr. Jeffrey.}
Dearest Mr. Jeffrey Strahl thinks that blocking me on substack helps with both his arguments and his integrity.
His comment is wrong (again.) He wrote: "those torched cars were TOWED to their locations from where they initially were, near the WTC."
What torched cars is Mr. Jeffrey Strahl referring to?
I bet Mr. Jeffrey Strahl was referring to the torched cars from Dr. Wood's book/website that shows some of them at the bridge, where indeed many had been towed from other locations where they were originally toasted.
However, my substack/blog article under the "Evidence in WTC Destruction" section has a bulleted list whose last item is a reference "torched cars" that expands and shows you torched cars near WTC-7 along West Broadway. They were not towed there. The time of the photograph was before WTC-7 came down and is in the picture.
Let me highlight for latter-day lurker-readers that this failing of Mr. Jeffrey Strahl to address the pictorial evidence from my blog article, means that HE.HAS.STILL.NOT.READ.IT. Another tactic that helps neither his arguments nor his integrity.
Not being able to follow links, expand "see more..." expansion, or reference note toggles is a major bot tell that both Ms. 9/11 Revisionist and Mr. Jeffrey Strahl exhibit.
Mr. Jeffrey Strahl wrote (poorly): "Judy Wod tried to use that as proof of a DEW."
That may very well be the case that Dr. Judy Wood used the bridge vehicles as proof of her "beams-from-above" DEW, and maybe should be considered as a built-in self-discrediting Easter Egg in Dr. Wood's disinfo work that she was informed about and should have corrected before transferring from her website into her book.
However, in a bot-miss, I'm not using bridge torched cars to make my FGNW (DEW) case... Except that images exist of the numbered police car with trunk open in its original location for (EMP) torching. [And if I were championing 9/11 beams-from-above -- which I'm not --, ABL could indeed account for the torched cars at their original locations.]
Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's substack articles had me almost believing his authenticity. Maybe he still is on the pandemic front. His output there seems engaging... oops, but not I'm blocked from ever doing so.
Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's 9/11 arguments, tactics, and beliefs need to evolve.
Except. Well... I was amazed at Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's prolific postings in his substack's brief three (3) month history. [I was thinking the same thing about Ms. 9/11 Revisionist's sudden collection of entries.] There are only three ways that prolific output can be achieved, in my professional opinion.
- The material was largely written in advance, and was simply queued up to appear when it did.
- Using a ChatGPT bot service, an article could be easily generated, proofread, and posted on his substack schedule.
- Least likely is a single person writing and publishing on that substack schedule (almost daily).
I'm again reminded of Mr. HybridRogue1, who was unintentionally caught manning a weak and stilted "contra-sockpuppet" (e.g., "AWright") who'd argue poorly for OCT so that Mr. HybridRogue1 could straw-man destroy OCT to build up his 9/11 truther-credentials. Went on sporatically for years, mostly to distract and flood the comment section from a more important conversaion.
In this case, Ms. 9/11 Revisionist seems the bot for Woodsian-DEW, repeating weak arguments I've encountered many times. Most remarkable was that the script and logic from a different Facebook entity (2023-09) was near identical to Ms. 9/11 Revisionist's recent discussion with me... until she blocked me and deleted our exchange from her substack.
Riding Ms. 9/11 Revisionist's Woodsian-DEW carousel diligently in a debunking capacity, we have Mr. Jeffrey Strahl. He bragged: "I had more than enough dealings with (Ms. 9/11 Revisionist) personally, i.e. via email daily and several hour-plus phone conversations per week, for a year and a half."
My naive and trusting superpowers give me no reason to doubt Mr. Jeffrey Strahl's previous time commitment with Ms. 9/11 Revisionist, but I do have reason to doubt that they would still have much to write to each other when she promotes fresh Woodsian-DEW carousel spins... Unless they spent that time coordinating.
I have reason to question why Ms. 9/11 Revisionist and Mr. Jeffrey Strahl did not MUTUALLY BLOCK each other long ago and early in their discussion. Within a scant-full of days of my exchanges with each of them, they both opted to block me, instead of rationally considering my arguments further. [Mr. Richard Gage deleted my comment before the afternoon was done.] "Considering" is a big word in this instance, because their canned answers for/against Woodsian-DEW get tripped up for doing nothing to address "neu nookiedoo." FGNW is different.
Another sign of bot-ism and agent-ism is when it takes cycles of cajoling to get them to supposedly follow a link and review a given reference, and in the end with their algorithms/agenda exposed in their final "buzz off" comments, they still won't have let spill any wisdom good or bad specific from the reference. On the flip-side when you go to their substack to offer reasoned on-topic critique to their work for them to defend... ultimately blocking and deletion. Pretty quickly in this case. As if they already knew me! [El-oh-el.]
Blocking and deletion hides that their algorithms and agenda cannot defend their premises and have no arguments to defeat my neu-nookiedoo hobby-horse... owing to its high percentage of 9/11 evidence addressing and more nuggets of Truth, and our legacy proving we traveled the high road.
In conclusion, the Woodsian threads here are looking a bit Helgian Dialectic: two (2) ChatGPT bots controlled by disinfo agent(s) arguing against one another following their pre-arranged script.
//