Home 911Truth Why Should DEW Scientists Honor a Non-Disclosure Agreement?

Why Should DEW Scientists Honor a Non-Disclosure Agreement?

19

(L) WTC on September 11, 2001  (R) Chris Bergier of Boston-for-9-11-Truth, playing the role of John Hancock

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Although I am not a member of Boston for 9-11 Truth, I attend their zoom meetings. This article introduces a Boston truther named Chris Bergier, and at the end I will play the almost-two-hour talk that he gave on May 16, 2024. It is now on YouTube.

Chris Bergier has plenty of scientific training. Moreover, he has chased down several theories about the fall of the Twin Towers on 9-11. He tries to deal with any theory he can get his hands on. In the presentation below, Bergier mainly supports Judy Wood’s idea that Directed Energy Weapons were used.

Dr Wood’s book is entitled “Where Did the Towers Go?” She claims they were dustified. She specifically says it was not like normal controlled demolitions, where the material falls to the ground. She also says it was not nano-thermite, as Prof Neils Harritt has claimed.

In a Gumshoe article of March 25, 2023,  I stuck up for Judy Wood, based mainly on “circumstantial evidence.” I am personally unable to handle the physics, but she gave side stories that I consider persuasive.

Judy Wood’s 9-11 Thesis and How We Can Deal with Our Treason

For example, underneath the Twin Towers are subway trains. A tub of water — known as “the bathtub” — had been built around the trains to prevent the Hudson River from drowning them. If a 100-story Tower had come down into its own footprint, its tons of material would have wrecked the bathtub, but we see that the bathtub survived. This supports her claim that only a small amount of debris fell. The rest disappeared, like dust, into the air.

I know Chris Bergier and he is a good guy. He wants to share the facts about 9-11 with the public.  On patriotic holidays he dresses up as John Hancock and hangs around the touristy areas, handing out leaflets.

I have stood on Boston streets with him, sharing these leaflets. (No, I don’t dress up as Dolly Madison.) Really, my heart is not in it. I doubt if any American, who accepts the Osama Bin Laden story, is moved by photos of the Towers showing how it was really done by demolition. People’s minds are simply too closed.

But in Bergier’s talk below, he happened to mention that Steve Jones was allowed to publish his theory of 9-11 because he had not signed a non-disclosure agreement. What! How can scientists sign a non-disclosure agreement, that is, one that prevents their knowledge or findings from being shared. (Am I showing my age when I say I thought science was open?)

Granted there are proprietary protections.  And military ones. But seriously, folks, when America has been attacked, those Americans who know how the attack occurred (or may have occurred) should toss their non-disclosure agreement into the’ circular filing cabinet.’ If instead they shut their mouth, they are aiding and abetting crime. Or so say I. (Heck, what would Dolly Madison say?)

Please, I am not discouraging anyone from watching Chris Bergier’s full video below. But in terms of forcing the public to wake up, I be much more interested in showing that the anti-Muslim propaganda is outrageous. Even as we speak, people are being tortured in Gitmo to yield the truth. Hey, did they sign non-disclosure agreements?  No — our employees did.

I say go for the non-disclosure agreements. And don’t forget, the use of DEW did not stop in 2001. It has been used since then, such as on the island of Maui in Hawaii on August 8, 2023. It may be used on your front garden tomorrow.

Come on, Scientists, kick up an angry fuss about being told to shutta you mouf when the matter to be discussed is How Americans killed Americans in broad daylight on September 11, 2001, and are still getting away with it.

Come on, waterboard anyone who is enforcing the non-disclosure agreements. Start with the Pentagon and the DoJ. Then try the manufacturer of the necessary implements for DEW. Then try all those who have spewed out false stories. Why does Rudy Giuliani, “great mayor of New York,” come to mind?

OK. Here is the lecture by Bergier:  

SHARE

19 COMMENTS

  1. Counter arguments not designed to eliminate other possibilities but just to moderate them
    – the presenters talk about “a solid building” ( any building is usually designed to optimise empty space inside )
    – not like a typical collapse ( which is initiated at the bottom not the top )
    – materials, apart from steel columns and relatively thin concrete floor slabs, aren’t known
    – some “evidence” like steel melted on a bible etc is too emotionally triggering for me to take at face value
    – energy input would have to be massive ( “nuclear powered neutron beam coming from the sky” theories )
    That said it’s quite interesting from about 40:00 onwards
    Also the skeptic guy talking from 1:18:30 starts some good arguments
    I agree the public is clueless about all the major media events and our crooked ABC-TV is pumping “ClimateChange” constantly with slogans, crackpot experts and fake news. At least they are wary of the injections now. The injections are a good place to start.

    Jesse Ventura Death Ray show made around 2009 (40 min)
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/LU8AW7SOuSuh/

  3. I have spent years on 911 so not going to bother how
    ALL THE BUILDINGS WERE BLOWN UP OR WHATEVER.

    WHO are the MASS MURDERERS who PLANNED IT, DID IT, USED IT, WENT
    ON TO MURDER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS USING IT AND THE AIDERS AND ABETTORS WHO LIED AND COVERED UP TO PROTECT THE MASS MURDERERS?

    We know who did it. Don’t we Mary?

    • With regards to the technology used on 9/11, MOST are missing the bigger picture!

      Just as the hazardous and wasteful technology behind a nuclear bomb can also be used to provide hazardous and wasteful nuclear power, the technology which caused the clean and effortless molecular dissociation of the twin towers could also be used to give the whole world effortless clean energy.

      Exposing this clean free energy technology means and end to the ruling elite’s ability to control and exploit the general population through scarce, expensive, dirty and inefficient resources such as oil, coal, nuclear and “renewables”.

      Any group with an interest in maintaining the current paradigm of artificial scarcity and crappy energy technologies, which keeps the general population enslaved, would have an interest in helping to maintain the 9/11 cover up, because exposing the crime also exposes the TECHNOLOGY to commit it.

      Maybe the people who did 9/11 operate under a code of conduct where they have to show this technology to the people, so they have the opportunity to claim it.

      And if the people are too stupid or apathetic to show any interest, they will then feel justified in keeping it for themselves and continuing to control and exploit the human herd, like the CATTLE they have shown themselves to be.

      You might think it’s insane, and it is, but remember we’re talking about a group of people who are willing to turn skyscrapers to DUST, live on TV.

      In the final analysis there is no “grand” deception” or cover up.
      There is only BLUFF!

      Because everyone can see what happened to the buildings was clearly and PROVABLY NOT a structural failure (collapse) or a conventional controlled demolition by ANY thermal or kinetic mechanism!

      Official narrative – Jet fuel.
      Option behind door no 1 – explosives,
      door no 2 – thermite,
      door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.

      Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.

      Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com

      Andrew Johnson’s two FREE E-Books on 9/11:

      9/11 – Finding the Truth – http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
      9/11 – Holding the Truth – http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/911%20Holding%20The%20Truth%20-Andrew%20Johnson%20-%202017.pdf

  4. ATTENTION SRT LOVERS.
    A great painting for the National Art Gallery in Canberra to reflect our politicians is discussed at before its news.com; king Charles portrait has to be a sure investment.
    New SGT Report: the Prince of Hell and the God of Heavan- Dustin Nemos’
    About of bible stuff for your Elspeth.

    • The reference to “The looking glass’ is current, AGAIN, from about 31 mins +
      Some must be passing their entrails by now as they think of the drop.

  6. Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, I apologize to Mr. Chris Bergier and latter-day lurker-viewers for my exhuberant participation in and interruptions to Mr. Bergier’s Boston 9/11 Truth presentation.

    You wrote: “[I]n Bergier’s talk below, he happened to mention that Steve Jones was allowed to publish his theory of 9-11 because he had not signed a non-disclosure agreement. What! How can scientists sign a non-disclosure agreement, that is, one that prevents their knowledge or findings from being shared.”

    I think Mr. Bergier was wrong about Dr. Jones’s NDAs. Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones most certainly was under NDAs. Since before I can remember, all who studied nuclear physics with aims of doing research or work in that field, whether for the government or private defense contractor, have NDAs with charges of treason and penalties including life-long incarceration or death.

    So, how did Dr. Jones avoid the penalties of his NDAs?

    First of all, recall that Dr. Jones had two main claims to fame in the 9/11 Truth Movement: [not in order] (1) He discovered energetic flakes only in the dust samples provided to him and speculated most erroneously into nano-thermite. (2) He supposedly debunked all forms of nuclear involvement in 9/11.

    In both instances, Dr. Jones acted the disinfo agent to distract from 9/11’s true destructive methods, which would implicate the US government and its agencies. Therefore, he was acting in behalf of the government who can selectively (and silently) absolve him of any perceived NDA transgression. [What penalties did he suffer? He was close to retirement, kept his BYU office, and could continue research; no harm and was made more famous.]

    But were some lone NDA enforcer from the government not get the message and attempt to go after Dr. Jones for NDA transgressions, the details will reveal that technically no transgression happened.

    (1) Dr. Jones certainly had no NDAs in place on nano-thermite, because much about thermite was already in the public domain. His work was entirely speculation with major gaps in NT performance (that Mr. Bergier rightly brings up.) NT can’t explain the brissance of the destruction (which Dr. Jones then admitted it had to be mixed with something like RDX); NT can’t explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (which Dr. Jones then admitted something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT.) NT doesn’t explain WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, and its champions don’t even try.

    (2) Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones attempted to discredit all forms of nuclear involvement, but his arguments were stilted to public perceptions of nuclear weapons (large destructive yield, large blast wave, large heat wave, lots of radioactive material spread through the environment, etc.) He mentioned nothing that wasn’t already in the public domain, and even there he purposely held back. He wrote about fission and thermonuclear devices (hybrid fission/fusion) and lamented how single devices would have taken out entire city blocks. He did not write about neutron nuclear weapons, a major and glaring omission. How so? Because such were the precedessors of all fourth generation exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW), which Dr. Jones and all other 9/11 Truth gatekeepers would not mention, consider, or as much as describe. Although such information is in the public domain, Dr. Jones undoubtedly had access to classified research that armed him with operational details whereby such disclosure would have been in violation of his NDA. His performance was a thumb to the steering wheel of what the 9/11 Truth Movement “should believe.”

    I have some issues with Mr. Bergier and his championing of Dr. Wood’s work. Specifically, he agrees that Dr. Wood’s book has lots of evidence but has no speculation, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, not an end-station. Her work is meant to be built upon and taken to the next level. Any sincere seeker of Truth — knowing and acknowledging Woodsian-DEW limitations — would be on the lookout for ~the~ subsequent premise(s) that do address Dr. Wood’s collection of evidence and takes it to the next level. Mr. Bergier doesn’t do that. How so?

    On 2024-03-21, I presented the FGNW premise to Boston 9/11 Truth, where Mr. Bergier was in attendance and participated.

    The presentation was based on a write-up of the same.

    https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html

    Mr. Bergier had a subseqeunt e-mail exchange with me where his points were more than addressed. Given that neither he nor Dr. Wood have provided anything other than some vague notion of DEW much less specific implementation and installation “speculation” into something real-world, FGNW ought to be what he promotes now, because they are in the category of DEW and are nuclear powered with energy to spare, addressing all of Dr. Wood’s short-comings.

    I have reason to believe that Mr. Bergier wasn’t really paying attention during my presentation. Based on his e-mail, I have reason to believe that he still hadn’t read my premise to objectively consider its merits. Based on our verbal exchange in his presentation, I have reason to believe that he didn’t even read my responding e-mails.

    Case in point, the FGNW relies on the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, a reputable Swiss nuclear physicists and peer-reviewed in reputable science publications (several dozen publications in three times as many languages as most American’s speak.) Mr. Bergier via e-mail tries to minimize Dr. Gsponer: “Give me a URL to Dr. Gsponer presenting his 9/11 findings.” I wrote back: “No can do, because Dr. Gsponer — to my knowledge — hasn’t written or said publicly anything about 9/11.” His peer-reviewed research (in the decade leading up to 9/11) are what is important. Further, Dr. Gsponer probably has NDA’s too, but his work wasn’t revealing any technical operational details and was somewhat speculative talking about FGNW as “pure fusion”, when today they are “hybrid fission-fusion”. Whether pure- or hybrid-fusion, the final stage outputs are the same: in this case, targeted highly energetic neutrons.

    At any rate, I was a bit annoyed for the verbal carousel spin from Mr. Bergier over information already addressed in the e-mail (proving he didn’t read it.)

    Mr. Bergier and Mr. Norman (9/11 Revisionist) have the same weaknesses. They are beholden to Woodsian-DEW talking points that are limited hang-outs and that they can’t defend when cornered, nor can they be budged from to move understanding forward. FGNW is next-level Woodsian-DEW that they can’t acknowledge and can only seemingly drag discussion backwards to an incomplete and inconclusive Woodsian-DEW. That’s not being sincere or objective. (Mr. Norman also has me blocked on Facebook and substack, and was less than convincing and even somewhat insincere in our e-mail exchanges. He does not debate in good-faith.)

    I admit that I championed: chemical-based explosives, then DEW from outside, then nano-thermite from inside, etc. On my second pass of Dr. Wood’s book, it became clear there was lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, and no conclusions… but the set of evidence was wonderful and pretty damning to most 9/11 theory-du-jours. Not to FGNW, though.

    Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, I do hope that you give adequate consideration and review of my thesis and earlier presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth.

    //

  7. Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, (2nd attempt) I apologize to Mr. Chris Bergier and latter-day lurker-viewers for my exuberant participation in and interruptions to Mr. Bergier’s Boston 9/11 Truth presentation.

    You wrote: “[I]n Bergier’s talk below, he happened to mention that Steve Jones was allowed to publish his theory of 9-11 because he had not signed a non-disclosure agreement. What! How can scientists sign a non-disclosure agreement, that is, one that prevents their knowledge or findings from being shared.”

    I think Mr. Bergier was wrong about Dr. Jones’s NDAs. Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones most certainly was under NDAs. Since before I can remember, all who studied nuclear physics with aims of doing research or work in that field, whether for the government or private defense contractor, have NDAs with charges of treason and penalties including life-long incarceration or death.

    So, how did Dr. Jones avoid the penalties of his NDAs?

    First of all, recall that Dr. Jones had two main claims to fame in the 9/11 Truth Movement: [not in order] (1) He discovered energetic flakes only in the dust samples provided to him and speculated most erroneously into nano-thermite. (2) He supposedly debunked all forms of nuclear involvement in 9/11.

    In both instances, Dr. Jones acted the disinfo agent to distract from 9/11’s true destructive methods, which would implicate the US government and its agencies. Therefore, he was acting in behalf of the government who can selectively (and silently) absolve him of any perceived NDA transgression. [What penalties did he suffer? He was close to retirement, kept his BYU office, and could continue research; no harm and was made more famous.]

    But were some lone NDA enforcer from the government not get the message and attempt to go after Dr. Jones for NDA transgressions, the details will reveal that technically no transgression happened.

    (1) Dr. Jones certainly had no NDAs in place on nano-thermite, because much about thermite was already in the public domain. His work was entirely speculation with major gaps in NT performance (that Mr. Bergier rightly brings up.) NT can’t explain the brissance of the destruction (which Dr. Jones then admitted it had to be mixed with something like RDX); NT can’t explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (which Dr. Jones then admitted something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT.) NT doesn’t explain WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, and its champions don’t even try.

    (2) Professor of nuclear physics Dr. Jones attempted to discredit all forms of nuclear involvement, but his arguments were stilted to public perceptions of nuclear weapons (large destructive yield, large blast wave, large heat wave, lots of radioactive material spread through the environment, etc.) He mentioned nothing that wasn’t already in the public domain, and even there he purposely held back. He wrote about fission and thermonuclear devices (hybrid fission/fusion) and lamented how single devices would have taken out entire city blocks. He did not write about neutron nuclear weapons, a major and glaring omission. How so? Because such were the precedessors of all fourth generation exotic nuclear weapons (FGNW), which Dr. Jones and all other 9/11 Truth gatekeepers would not mention, consider, or as much as describe. Although such information is in the public domain, Dr. Jones undoubtedly had access to classified research that armed him with operational details whereby such disclosure would have been in violation of his NDA. His performance was a thumb to the steering wheel of what the 9/11 Truth Movement “should believe.”

    I have some issues with Mr. Bergier and his championing of Dr. Wood’s work. Specifically, he agrees that Dr. Wood’s book has lots of evidence but has no speculation, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, not an end-station. Her work is meant to be built upon and taken to the next level. Any sincere seeker of Truth — knowing and acknowledging Woodsian-DEW limitations — would be on the lookout for ~the~ subsequent premise(s) that do address Dr. Wood’s collection of evidence and takes it to the next level. Mr. Bergier doesn’t do that. How so?

    On 2024-03-21, I presented the FGNW premise to Boston 9/11 Truth, where Mr. Bergier was in attendance and participated.

    The presentation was based on a write-up of the same.

    https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html

    Mr. Bergier had a subseqeunt e-mail exchange with me where his points were more than addressed. Given that neither he nor Dr. Wood have provided anything other than some vague notion of DEW much less specific implementation and installation “speculation” into something real-world, FGNW ought to be what he promotes now, because they are in the category of DEW and are nuclear powered with energy to spare, addressing all of Dr. Wood’s short-comings.

    I have reason to believe that Mr. Bergier wasn’t really paying attention during my presentation. Based on his e-mail, I have reason to believe that he still hadn’t read my premise to objectively consider its merits. Based on our verbal exchange in his presentation, I have reason to believe that he didn’t even read my responding e-mails.

    Case in point, the FGNW relies on the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, a reputable Swiss nuclear physicists and peer-reviewed in reputable science publications (several dozen publications in three times as many languages as most American’s speak.) Mr. Bergier via e-mail tries to minimize Dr. Gsponer: “Give me a URL to Dr. Gsponer presenting his 9/11 findings.” I wrote back: “No can do, because Dr. Gsponer — to my knowledge — hasn’t written or said publicly anything about 9/11.” His peer-reviewed research (in the decade leading up to 9/11) are what is important. Further, Dr. Gsponer probably has NDA’s too, but his work wasn’t revealing any technical operational details and was somewhat speculative talking about FGNW as “pure fusion”, when today they are “hybrid fission-fusion”. Whether pure- or hybrid-fusion, the final stage outputs are the same: in this case, targeted highly energetic neutrons.

    At any rate, I was a bit annoyed for the verbal carousel spin from Mr. Bergier over information already addressed in the e-mail (proving he didn’t read it.)

    Mr. Bergier and Mr. Norman (9/11 Revisionist) have the same weaknesses. They are beholden to Woodsian-DEW talking points that are limited hang-outs and that they can’t defend when cornered, nor can they be budged from to move understanding forward. FGNW is next-level Woodsian-DEW that they can’t acknowledge and can only seemingly drag discussion backwards to an incomplete and inconclusive Woodsian-DEW. That’s not being sincere or objective. (Mr. Norman also has me blocked on Facebook and substack, and was less than convincing and even somewhat insincere in our e-mail exchanges. He does not debate in good-faith.)

    I admit that I championed: chemical-based explosives, then DEW from outside, then nano-thermite from inside, etc. On my second pass of Dr. Wood’s book, it became clear there was lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, and no conclusions… but the set of evidence was wonderful and pretty damning to most 9/11 theory-du-jours. Not to FGNW, though.

    Dear Ms. Mary Maxwell, I do hope that you give adequate consideration and review of my thesis and earlier presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth.

    //

  8. Maxwell

    I have worked through your website and found your research lacking and a poor attempt to muddle up what Dr Wood presents, just like the limited hangout which is Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth, Fetzer and the rest of the clown show.

    You are blocked on my socials, as I will not be dragged into your childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks.

    You state you’ve been researching 9/11 for over 20 years, yet you knew nothing of the lack of mention of thermite or “molten metal” in the RFC (request for correction) that AE911 filed AFTER Dr Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds file their SEPERATE RFC’s to NIST in 2007.

    A multitude of evidence Dr Wood presents is not even discussed in your work and when Mr Bergier pointed out anomalies after your Boston 9/11 presentation, you had nothing to say in defense of anomalies that don’t fit your premise.

    You are just another distraction trying to dilute and misrepresent what Dr Wood has brought to the table.

    As anyone would know that has read her book and court filings and the 23 NIST subcontractors she sued, ARA and SAIC to be specific, as they were tasked with security and cleanup at ground zero, as well as writing scientifically fraudulent reports that made up the NIST Report, if successful in her court case, she would be able to depose these companies, as they specialise in psychological operations, development OF DEW and weather modification.

    You, as with all the other detractors of the evidence presented by Dr Wood, have NEVER filed your own RFC to NIST or sued any of the subcontractors, so how about putting your money were your mouth is.

    At the end of the day, you are only speculating, promoting another “conspiracy theory” just like the bomb, thermite and buried nukes / mini nukes and no one even buys into your conspiracy theory, as it all hinges on one paper, that has not even been proven that your so called exotic nukes even exist.

    You sir are a limited hangout.

    • Dear Mr. Norman, You wrote: “I have worked through your website…”

      No, you haven’t. My website hasn’t been functional in quite some time. Maybe you are referring to my blog. But there again, you demonstrate that you haven’t worked it, much less the FGNW article in question.

      https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/11/911-fgnw-exotic-nuclear-weapons.html

      The reason that I can make such bold assertions of what you haven’t done: no details or specifics.

      You continued your run-on sentence with: “… and found your research lacking…”

      No, you didn’t. If this were the case, you would have provided: details and specifics. Where does the premise come up short?

      What about the re-used images both from Dr. Wood and from your (lame and confusing) substack? Are those lacking too? Because if so, then point the finger at yourself.

      You continued your run-on sentence with: “… and a poor attempt to muddle up what Dr Wood presents,…”

      Quite the bit of projection there, Mr. Norman. You — like all members of the Woodsian-DEW disinfo team — talk out of both sides of your mouth. You (all) claim that Dr. Wood’s work is all about the evidence, and that its main strength is that it connects no dots and draws no conclusions. If you (all) are going to use that as a selling point, then it is you who “muddle up what Dr. Wood presents.”

      Dr. Wood has no conclusions only evidence. The task then becomes to identify the premise(s) that do address the evidence. This is what FGNW does, and your only (repeated) assessment is that you “found it lacking.”

      You continued your run-on sentence with: “… just like the limited hangout which is Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth, Fetzer and the rest of the clown show.”

      Nope, not just like them.

      You wrote: “You are blocked on my socials, as I will not be dragged into your childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks.”

      “Childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks”? Prove it. Quote me. Prove your contention. I know you can’t, because you were very quick to delete my comments from your socials. Nonetheless, I have the receipts of what I wrote to your socials (to be published when I feel like getting around to it.)

      Ergo, Mr. Norman, if the “childish name calling and derogatory personal attacks” references me — such as in this very sentence — calling you a “liar,” it isn’t libel or defamation when it is so easily proven as a validated character trait.

      You wrote: “You state you’ve been researching 9/11 for over 20 years, yet you knew nothing of the lack of mention of thermite or “molten metal” in the RFC (request for correction) that AE911 filed AFTER Dr Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds file their SEPERATE RFC’s to NIST in 2007.”

      It isn’t a crime to know little about something. Not my hobby-horse.

      Pay attention to this turn-about. If RFC (request for correction) is such an important thing to you, how come you’ve never submitted your RFC to Dr. Wood and encouraged her to (a) fix all of the mistakes in her book, (b) perform valid and more detailed research into both DEW and nuclear means, and (c) speculate into design, implementation, and configuration.

      Until that version 2 of her book appears, all you’re doing is clawing back from a full-fledge premise (FGNW) that addresses the evidence (not just) in Dr. Wood’s work and parking your readers understanding at unripe concepts and dangling innuendo. Disinfo at its finest, your efforts.

      You wrote: “A multitude of evidence Dr Wood presents is not even discussed in your work and when Mr Bergier pointed out anomalies after your Boston 9/11 presentation, you had nothing to say in defense of anomalies that don’t fit your premise.”

      You don’t make a very good distinction between actual evidence in Dr. Wood’s book and the multitude of dangling innuendo that doesn’t address the evidence and doesn’t even come close to working prototypes.

      My work doesn’t have to address every single nugget from Dr. Wood’s book, because not all are even nuggets of truth and are simply things she name-drops without details or specifics (just like your MO.)

      Further, the anomalies that Mr. Bergier pointed out don’t even have working explanations (or even reasoned speculation) from Dr. Wood, from you, or from Mr. Bergier. No one on your Woodsian-DEW disinfo team ever offers up valid concepts on the nature of the destructive devices, where they were placed, and how the anomalies were created.

      My work proves that FGNW were “the primary mechanism of destruction.” Doesn’t rule out seconary means, which could be NT, a Hutchison device, and the kitchen sink from the top-floor restaurant.

      Had you read my premise, as you claim, you’d know this.

      You wrote: “You are just another distraction trying to dilute and misrepresent what Dr Wood has brought to the table.”

      Dr. Wood’s work stands on its own as “just another distraction trying to dilute and misrepresent what Dr Wood has brought to the table.”

      I represent Dr. Wood’s work actually quite accurately as “evidence that needs to be addressed” but “having no conclusions or dot-connection”, so can’t be propped up as an END STATION, which is exactly the purpose of YOUR disinfo efforts. Dr. Wood (among others in the 9/11 Truth Movement) did a monumentally shitty job of researching DEW and nuclear means, period, end of story.

      Were you sincere, you’d be able to acknowledge these limitations and these precise areas where your matron saint’s work “is lacking.”

      You wrote: “As anyone would know that has read her book and court filings and the 23 NIST subcontractors she sued, ARA and SAIC to be specific, as they were tasked with security and cleanup at ground zero, as well as writing scientifically fraudulent reports that made up the NIST Report, if successful in her court case, she would be able to depose these companies, as they specialise in psychological operations, development OF DEW and weather modification.”

      Blah, blah, blah. Dr. Wood knew she didn’t have standing to be making the court files. And owing to the flaws of her work — no dot-connection, no conclusions –, her court case was destined to fail.

      You wrote: “You, as with all the other detractors of the evidence presented by Dr Wood, have NEVER filed your own RFC to NIST or sued any of the subcontractors, so how about putting your money were your mouth is.”

      You, as with all the other disinfo Woodsian-DEW minions, do not have the integrity to acknowledge the flaws in Dr. Wood’s work that necessitate a revision of that work that would provide appropriate research and descriptions into DEW and nuclear means that then have half a chance of addressing the evidence.

      You have NEVER filed your own RFC to Dr. Wood to have its many flaws corrected. So how about putting your money were your mouth is.

      You wrote: “At the end of the day, you are only speculating, promoting another “conspiracy theory” just like the bomb, thermite and buried nukes / mini nukes and no one even buys into your conspiracy theory, as it all hinges on one paper, that has not even been proven that your so called exotic nukes even exist.”

      At the end of the day, you are NOT even speculating. You are only promoting an incomplete and substandard work that neither Dr. Wood nor any of her minions have been able to cobble together into a valid “conspiracy theory.”

      You claim that my theory is all hinged on one paper from a reputable nuclear scientists peer-reveiwed and published in a reputable science journal: “Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects” by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
      https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071

      Your claim is false. My theory addresses the evidence of fission, the evidence of fusion, the evidence of high energy, the evidence in the audio signature, etc., all of which Dr. Wood does not.

      However, if we take your comment at face value that my theory is all hinged on one paper, you have proven yourself incapable of reading that paper and mining it for applicable nuggets of truth. As with my work, you demonstrated nothing that indicates you read Dr. Gsponer’s work; you certainly provided no details or substance that might prove Dr. Gsponer wrong, let along my extapolation of that work into my premise.

      In short throughout our correspondence, I have provided you with bullet lists of the main issues with Dr. Wood’s work, yet you don’t have the integrity to acknowledge or debunk them. Maybe if you provided me with the specific flaws in my work, I could address and maybe correct them.

      Alas your contribution to the discussion has been to be a lame-parrot of Woodsian-DEW with only the ability to drop hypnotic suggestion about FGNW somehow being lacking.

      You wrote: “You sir are a limited hangout.”

      Your project and hypnotic suggestion have no power here.

      You, sir, are insincere and a disinfo agent.

      //

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.