Dear Mr. McKee, So this two part video is yet another example of 9/11 evidence that my 9/11 hobby-horse can easily pluck up off of the Truth trail and carry in her saddle bags.
Comingling of body pieces.
Imagine two or more "sacks of meat" close to one another and end-to-end skewered with the expelled highly-energetic neutrons of FGNW. I speculated that the energy left-behind would be sufficient to turn water into high temperature steam whose expanding volumetric pressure turns each of the sacks of meat into comingled clouds of chunky steam blasting way from the FGNW emission.
An "explosion" from some destructive source did not create the chunky comingle steam via a blast wave from that source.
No, high energy deposited throughout the molecular structure of the sacks of meat turned those sacks of meat "explosively" into bloody, chunky steam.
The subtle but important distinction. "Content explosively blowing itself into pieces (via the energy left-behind from the neutrons passing through it)" is different that "an explosive propagating a destructive blast wave to blow the content apart." The latter is debunked by the decibel signature of the event, which wasn't deafening. Also debunked by the logistics and implementation. Also debunked by the dust (evidence of fission), by the tritium report (evidence of fusion), by the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
How many more interviews does the dynamic duo need to get under their belt before I'm invited to present?
Dear Mr. McKee, So this two part video is yet another example of 9/11 evidence that my 9/11 hobby-horse can easily pluck up off of the Truth trail and carry in her saddle bags.
Comingling of body pieces.
Imagine two or more "sacks of meat" close to one another and end-to-end skewered with the expelled highly-energetic neutrons of FGNW. I speculated that the energy left-behind would be sufficient to turn water into high temperature steam whose expanding volumetric pressure turns each of the sacks of meat into comingled clouds of chunky steam blasting way from the FGNW emission.
An "explosion" from some destructive source did not create the chunky comingle steam via a blast wave from that source.
No, high energy deposited throughout the molecular structure of the sacks of meat turned those sacks of meat "explosively" into bloody, chunky steam.
The subtle but important distinction. "Content explosively blowing itself into pieces (via the energy left-behind from the neutrons passing through it)" is different that "an explosive propagating a destructive blast wave to blow the content apart." The latter is debunked by the decibel signature of the event, which wasn't deafening. Also debunked by the logistics and implementation. Also debunked by the dust (evidence of fission), by the tritium report (evidence of fusion), by the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
How many more interviews does the dynamic duo need to get under their belt before I'm invited to present?
//