Profile image
By The Vatic Project (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW

Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:32
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Vatic Note: It has been quite awhile since Mr. Bridges (Mr. Bruecke) added content to this blog, and it is wonderful to see that it is an original work. To what did he attribute his delay? Burn-out, frustration, procrastination, and the responsibilities of real life.

Well, it appears that I may or may not get this up since the PTB keep preventing me from scheduling this great write up.  Stay  with us and we will keep trying. Not much need for a vatic note since he did an excellent job of saying all that had to be said. 

Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
By: Maxwell C. Bridges
Date: 2016-03-11

This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. In doing so, it discusses why the leading theory of Nano-Thermite proposed by many influential leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement does not go the whole distance and is therefore wrong. This work demonstrates evolution in the beliefs of the author when presented with new information, although much of this article’s content has been published previously.
Certain quotations reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

1. Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices & 9/11

2. Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow

3. Running the numbers on NT

4. Test the Samples

5. Sleight of Hand

6. Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires

7. Horse shoes, arches, and “steel doobies.”

8. Controlling the Opposition

9. Efforts to Debunk 9/11 Nuclear Devices

10. Report 1: Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center

11. Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al

12. Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers

13. High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions

14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift

15. Directed Energy

16. The History of W-54

17. Blackmail of Bush 1 & 2: Sales of the W-54

18. The Dirt on That

19. Dr. Thomas Cahill and the Continually Regenerated Fine Particles

20. Decontamination and First Responder Ailments

21. EMP and Electromagnetic Energy

22. Vehicle Damage

23. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars

24. Conductive, Corrosive and Abrasive Dust and Vehicle Fires

25. Embrittlement

26. Cover-Up, Tight Security, and Destruction of Evidence

27. Nuclear Scientific ResearchThe US Government took the position many decades ago to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available in publications, because publishing such could enable those with bad intentions against us. Those who wish to study, and have professions involving, nuclear science in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties, or they are left out of all of the interesting research.

If the question is asked “where are all of the nuclear scientists who should be weighing in one way or another about 9/11 and who could clear up piles of misinformation?”, the answer is that they know where their funding comes from, who pays the research bills, and what their non-disclosure agreements say. It benefits them in no way to come forward and correct the public record. And were they to be so bold, the retaliation from the “you are either with us or against us” crowd has proven to be very effective. (It is beyond the scope of this article to provided details into the authorship of the USA PATRIOT ACT and its lightning quick passage in Congress in a time period shortly after 9/11 that included Anthrax attacks against the House Majority Leader and a news media icon.)

If the US government wanted to steer the public’s perceptions regarding nuclear involvement in 9/11, it could be achieved with a small group of PhDs and experts who balanced the requirements of the “message-controlling” assignment with their own personal ethics. The mistakes that they made might have been purposeful with the intent of being discovered, precisely so an article could raise public awareness to “what is really going and has been going on!”

Although most nuclear research does not get a wide public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of details that would help others’ implementation. The work of Dr. Andre Gsponer fits into such requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many years to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer’s “speculation” into where nuclear research was headed, and (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions prior to 2001; then-current and re-enforcing information was gathered to refine the direction of his nuclear speculation.

Damning for 9/11 Truth and AE911Truth: the omission of Dr. Andre Gsponer’s FGNW work from Dr. Steven Jones’ peer-reviewed “letter” that repudiated 9/11 nuclear devices for the 9/11TM and the world at large. Of course, Dr. Judy Wood’s work is guilty of the same omission.

Were a wide-spread public revelation come to fruition that the US Government (with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the “figurative” nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo. This risk could be and was significantly reduced by controlling the messager’s message away from themes nuclear, or into skewed nuclear variants that do not address the evidence correctly (e.g., deep underground nukes, beams from space) and are thus easily debunked in classic straw-man fashion.

28. Summary: Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices

29. 9/11 Tetris: The Theory Stack with the Fewest Gaps

30. Acknowledgements and Credits

31. Enough to Alter Conclusions?

Show All

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories


Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.