• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

explosives or mini nukes Jones vs. Prager who is right?

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is not a debate on if controlled demolition was conducted to bring the WTC down. It is a discussion on conflicting stances and statements which both cannot be true. This thread is to have no ties to the official reports. It is to look at two authors with different stances on controlled demolition.

It has been said on another thread why would someone trust something that comes from known liars. They were referring to the govt and the reports regarding September 11, 2001.

I want to ask those who believe in controlled demolition which one is the known liar,
a. Jones
b. Prager
c. Both

Prager has come out with stating the destruction of the towers was done by a mini nuke neutron bomb as the controlled demolition explosive

Jones has come out and stated that in no way was nukes used in controlled demolition of the towers.

One or both are liars. They both can’t be correct on this.

“Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity
was simply at background levels.”

Another poster has continued to rant about the complete pulverization of the concrete. Therefore explosives had to be used to pulverize the concrete. Even within the CT word people like Jones find the concrete was not pulverized to fine dust.
.

“As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was
approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam
destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

So we have a case who is not telling the truth The poster who claims pulverization and provides no supporting documentation. Or Jones who at least examined the dust.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...re-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf
 

Menard_K

Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
233
Location
L5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
This is not a debate on if controlled demolition was conducted to bring the WTC down. It is a discussion on conflicting stances and statements which both cannot be true. This thread is to have no ties to the official reports. It is to look at two authors with different stances on controlled demolition.

It has been said on another thread why would someone trust something that comes from known liars. They were referring to the govt and the reports regarding September 11, 2001.

I want to ask those who believe in controlled demolition which one is the known liar,
a. Jones
b. Prager
c. Both

Prager has come out with stating the destruction of the towers was done by a mini nuke neutron bomb as the controlled demolition explosive

Jones has come out and stated that in no way was nukes used in controlled demolition of the towers.

One or both are liars. They both can’t be correct on this.

“Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity
was simply at background levels.”

Another poster has continued to rant about the complete pulverization of the concrete. Therefore explosives had to be used to pulverize the concrete. Even within the CT word people like Jones find the concrete was not pulverized to fine dust.
.

“As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was
approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam
destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

So we have a case who is not telling the truth The poster who claims pulverization and provides no supporting documentation. Or Jones who at least examined the dust.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...re-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

To cut through all of the speculation, one can simply say that in order to
"collapse" the Twin Towers & WTC 7 as was observed on 9/11/2001
there had to have been an additional source of energy present.
I personally don't care if that source of energy was black powder,
or Nukes, it was still an additional source of energy and the ONLY way
you could have the result as observed is to have had an additional source of energy.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To cut through all of the speculation, one can simply say that in order to
"collapse" the Twin Towers & WTC 7 as was observed on 9/11/2001
there had to have been an additional source of energy present.
I personally don't care if that source of energy was black powder,
or Nukes, it was still an additional source of energy and the ONLY way
you could have the result as observed is to have had an additional source of energy.

So you don't care if one or both have lied. Therefore you are basing your stance on misinformation. good to know.
 

Menard_K

Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
233
Location
L5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So you don't care if one or both have lied. Therefore you are basing your stance on misinformation. good to know.

In exactly what way do you believe that I base my stance on "misinformation" ?
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So you don't care if one or both have lied. Therefore you are basing your stance on misinformation. good to know.

Why are you so hung up on whether Jones or Prager is a liar? That seems to define your entire view of this issue.

Are you able to just study the facts and draw your own conclusions? Is this The View? Egads.

Menard is right--some sort of energy source was required to see what we saw that day. Gravity and office fires CANNOT have done what was done, what the facts show.

Black powder, C4, something--ANYTHING but gravity and office fires.

As you already know, I find Prager's theory compelling and consistent with the facts as we know them. Though I hate to say so, it does appear that Jones might very well be agent provocateur.
 

psikeyhackr

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Who cares?

If airliners and fire could not bring the buildings down then something else had to do it. Just because you do not know what it was is not PROOF that airliners and fire did it.

It should be possible the the falling top of the north tower could not possibly destroy the rest. Do that and then force experts to start looking.

People arguing about trivia helps maintain confusion. I suspect that is part of the psyops to keep the problem from being addressed.

psik
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is not a debate on if controlled demolition was conducted to bring the WTC down. It is a discussion on conflicting stances and statements which both cannot be true. This thread is to have no ties to the official reports. It is to look at two authors with different stances on controlled demolition.

It has been said on another thread why would someone trust something that comes from known liars. They were referring to the govt and the reports regarding September 11, 2001.

I want to ask those who believe in controlled demolition which one is the known liar,
a. Jones
b. Prager
c. Both

Prager has come out with stating the destruction of the towers was done by a mini nuke neutron bomb as the controlled demolition explosive

Jones has come out and stated that in no way was nukes used in controlled demolition of the towers.

One or both are liars. They both can’t be correct on this.

“Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity
was simply at background levels.”

Another poster has continued to rant about the complete pulverization of the concrete. Therefore explosives had to be used to pulverize the concrete. Even within the CT word people like Jones find the concrete was not pulverized to fine dust.
.

“As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was
approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam
destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

So we have a case who is not telling the truth The poster who claims pulverization and provides no supporting documentation. Or Jones who at least examined the dust.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...re-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

I think it is safe to say that anyone who thinks the building was brought down by anything other than a terrorist attack is a complete nutjob.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why are you so hung up on whether Jones or Prager is a liar? That seems to define your entire view of this issue.

Are you able to just study the facts and draw your own conclusions? Is this The View? Egads.

Menard is right--some sort of energy source was required to see what we saw that day. Gravity and office fires CANNOT have done what was done, what the facts show.

Black powder, C4, something--ANYTHING but gravity and office fires.

As you already know, I find Prager's theory compelling and consistent with the facts as we know them. Though I hate to say so, it does appear that Jones might very well be agent provocateur.

Why am I "hung up". Not really hung up. Just wanted a new topic about 911. So your not interested in the divide among two CT authors. As I stated, one has to be giving misinformation since Jones states no nukes.

Have you not basically said the govt. lies so don't trust govt. reports? Same should apply to alternative explanations authors. If one or both is sending out misinformation, why trust anything they write.

I was also curious on how followers of CT authors would reply. It so far has shown the double standard used by CT supporters.
 
Last edited:

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who cares?

If airliners and fire could not bring the buildings down then something else had to do it. Just because you do not know what it was is not PROOF that airliners and fire did it.

It should be possible the the falling top of the north tower could not possibly destroy the rest. Do that and then force experts to start looking.

People arguing about trivia helps maintain confusion. I suspect that is part of the psyops to keep the problem from being addressed.

psik

you are off topic partially.
We have two authors. One says nukes and one says no nukes. It is a dodge to say it doesn't matter.
The topic is which author is giving misinformation.
Why can't you state which one you think is spreading misinformation?
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,824
Reaction score
1,103
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
To cut through all of the speculation, one can simply say that in order to
"collapse" the Twin Towers & WTC 7 as was observed on 9/11/2001
there had to have been an additional source of energy present.
I personally don't care if that source of energy was black powder,
or Nukes, it was still an additional source of energy and the ONLY way
you could have the result as observed is to have had an additional source of energy.

Who says? You've been asked before to explain how much energy is required to destroy the towers and how much PE was in them. You don't answer because you don't know and repeat stuff without thinking.

Who told you that? Did you vet the statement?
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,824
Reaction score
1,103
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Why are you so hung up on whether Jones or Prager is a liar? That seems to define your entire view of this issue.

Are you able to just study the facts and draw your own conclusions? Is this The View? Egads.

Menard is right--some sort of energy source was required to see what we saw that day. Gravity and office fires CANNOT have done what was done, what the facts show.

Black powder, C4, something--ANYTHING but gravity and office fires.

As you already know, I find Prager's theory compelling and consistent with the facts as we know them. Though I hate to say so, it does appear that Jones might very well be agent provocateur.

You are making this up...

What facts show what we saw was not possible?
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,824
Reaction score
1,103
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
you are off topic partially.
We have two authors. One says nukes and one says no nukes. It is a dodge to say it doesn't matter.
The topic is which author is giving misinformation.
Why can't you state which one you think is spreading misinformation?


Both could be wrong and are... doesn't make them liars... just delusional.
 

psikeyhackr

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
you are off topic partially.
We have two authors. One says nukes and one says no nukes. It is a dodge to say it doesn't matter.
The topic is which author is giving misinformation.
Why can't you state which one you think is spreading misinformation?

Because I am not going to waste my time reading either one. A mini-nuke is an explosive. So both options dictate there was more involved than airliners and fire.

psik
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Who cares?

If airliners and fire could not bring the buildings down then something else had to do it. Just because you do not know what it was is not PROOF that airliners and fire did it.

It should be possible the the falling top of the north tower could not possibly destroy the rest. Do that and then force experts to start looking.

People arguing about trivia helps maintain confusion. I suspect that is part of the psyops to keep the problem from being addressed.

psik

The problem is never going to be 'addressed', whatever exactly you mean by that. As far as the government is concerned, it has already been addressed, an investigation was conducted and a report issued. Case closed. That's how the government works.

It is no more going to "investigate" the events of the day than it is going to investigate the killing of JFK or MLK. Case closed.

That's where Richard Gage et al are so naïve. There will be no more investigations. The history books have been written, and the public perception is reinforced at every turn by Hollywood and others.

The court of public opinion is really all that exists, and it is not exactly surprising that polls show that the majority do not trust the official story. Perhaps common sense is more prevalent than I had thought?
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You are making this up...

What facts show what we saw was not possible?

We've gone over them a million times Sanders, and I'll not waste anymore keystrokes on those in denial. :thumbdown
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Both could be wrong and are... doesn't make them liars... just delusional.

I could of used another word other than liars. But, since some have stated the govt has lied about 911, thought it was a good fit.
My point they both cannot be correct. So someone is spreading misinformation.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because I am not going to waste my time reading either one. A mini-nuke is an explosive. So both options dictate there was more involved than airliners and fire.

psik

figured. So you don't wish to find the "truth". got it.
 

psikeyhackr

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The problem is never going to be 'addressed', whatever exactly you mean by that. As far as the government is concerned, it has already been addressed, an investigation was conducted and a report issued. Case closed. That's how the government works.

It is no more going to "investigate" the events of the day than it is going to investigate the killing of JFK or MLK. Case closed.

No, this is a PHYSICS PROBLEM not a LEGAL PROBLEM.

The "case" cannot be closed until the physics is explained and some people will always know physicists are either gutless or liars. And physics will have to be taught for centuries to come.

JFK and MLK are irrelevant by comparison. It is the association with the usual conspiracy drivel that interferes with this.

psik
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I figured this thread would not get many replies. It is interesting that so far those who support CD are unwilling to make a stand on which of the two are not telling the truth. Yet they have taken any report that indicates that no explosives were needed and nit pick every point.

So when asked about two conflicted CD explanation, the replies its doesn't matter, is all explosives. Good to know that you don't care about the specifics.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Who has time to waste on this malarkey?

There are many much more productive things to do with any spare time that you have.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,056
Reaction score
16,933
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who has time to waste on this malarkey?

There are many much more productive things to do with any spare time that you have.

then why did you post? You could have ignored the thread.

It is not a waste of time. Jones and Prager have been main stay CD proponents. Since both cannot be correct, I was wanting to see if the CD supporters would take a stand. The answer is a resounding no. They are waffling.
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,824
Reaction score
1,103
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I could of used another word other than liars. But, since some have stated the govt has lied about 911, thought it was a good fit.
My point they both cannot be correct. So someone is spreading misinformation.

I don't know about spreading misinformation... They are publishing incorrect information probably (maybe) believing they are correct. Lies don't get far ... they have short legs. If they're selling... very few are buying. I wonder why? No I don't.. I know... people can see it's rubbish.
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,824
Reaction score
1,103
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, this is a PHYSICS PROBLEM not a LEGAL PROBLEM.

The "case" cannot be closed until the physics is explained and some people will always know physicists are either gutless or liars. And physics will have to be taught for centuries to come.

JFK and MLK are irrelevant by comparison. It is the association with the usual conspiracy drivel that interferes with this.

psik

What don't you think is adequately explained? And why does it matter?
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
then why did you post? You could have ignored the thread.

It is not a waste of time. Jones and Prager have been main stay CD proponents. Since both cannot be correct, I was wanting to see if the CD supporters would take a stand. The answer is a resounding no.
They are waffling
.





They are taking a strong pro-waffle position, in other words.

I respect that.

I like my waffles with honey, strawberries and whipped cream.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom