• 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?

shrubnose said:
They are taking a strong pro-waffle position. In other words.

I respect that.

I like my waffles with honey, strawberries, and whipped cream.
Click to expand...

if you don't want to address the issue , then please find another thread to post your off topic remarks.
 
were getting off topic.

It is interesting when faced with two opposing views on CD, where it is quite clear one CT author has said no nukes, and the other said it was, that no CT posters will make a clear stand.

HD has come the closest by stating "I find Prager's theory compelling .....Though I hate to say so, it does appear that Jones might very well be agent provocateur."

others say its doesn't matter its all explosives.

and as expected any vids not supporting an alternative theory is dissed away without providing any supporting evidence to the rejection.
 
Menard_K said:
Thank YOU ever so much .... the video engages in a continuation of the
"my experts are better than your experts" game
and also attempts character assassination.

Ya, great stuff ...... whatever ........
Click to expand...

it is noted your post provides opinion with no supporting evidence to back up your statements.
 
Menard_K said:
Thank YOU ever so much .... the video engages in a continuation of the
"my experts are better than your experts" game
and also attempts character assassination.

Ya, great stuff ...... whatever ........
Click to expand...

MK look at the SUBSTANCE not who makes the comments. Did you understand how fire can destroy steel frames IN high rise structures? Did you see that in the Madrid fire the steel part completely collapsed but the concrete part didn't?

It's not THAT so called experts say something... it's what they say whether they are experts of not. LOOK AT THE MERITS of the arguments.

I do think with respect to witness testimony true experts are better observers than lay persons.

I do think that engineers generally understand structures better than lay persons. But all engineers are not equal

I do think that physicists understand mechanics better than lay persons. But all physicists are not equal.

My sense is your beliefs are informed by DVDs and so forth that you've seen on the net or bought... produced by people with a POV. The video I posted shows that Sophia is not well informed and simply mouthing the words someone out in her head. She is a nice person. I've spoken with her several times and I think she BELIEVES what she presents. But she admits and knows she is not technically competent to understand the claims she makes or the engineering and physics involved. She seems to have receded from the movement, perhaps feeling that perhaps she was wrong? I don't know. Why would someone like her who make 911 Mysteries disappear from the scene? She's not defending her work either. I would guess that she's changed her mind (accepted the merits of the criticism). Is too proud to issue retractions and make a film which corrects the false claims. Or perhaps she's moved onto other things and doesn't care? Or maybe she's not well? Or maybe she feels that she's correct and made her contribution and it's up to others to carry on?

How do you interpret the situation where someone makes claims , issues some DVD, paper etc... and then drops away and does not defend the content (while letting others quote and link to their work and defend and use it?) Why are they not doing what the on the ground "truthers" are doing such as you?

Why doesn't David Ray Griffin debate anyone who disagrees with him?
Why doesn't Chandler? Hoffman? Harrit? Jones, Brookman, Judy Wood, and others who are constantly cited by the truth movement as experts?

Gage has debated one person.. Chris Mohr who is NOT an engineer or a scientist and if you read the debates etc... It seems to me that Mohr destroyed Gage's arguments.

intro Part 0 Introduction to Richard Gage's Blueprint for Truth Respectful Rebuttal (Not Debunked) - YouTube
part 1 how collapses initiated Part 1 Gage 9/11 Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): What Initiated Tower Collapses - YouTube
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
Part 2 of Richard Gage's 9/11 Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal: Gage's 10 Reasons - YouTube
part 3 history of fire collapses Part 3 Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses - YouTube
part 4 symmetrical/freefall Part 3 Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses - YouTube
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs Part 5 Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Lateral Ejection of Steel and Squibs - YouTube
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel Part 6 Richard Gage's 9/11 Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Pulverized concrete - YouTube

Tony Szamboti, has gotten into the trenches but retreats and disappears when his arguments (facts, data, physics and logic have been been destroyed). Tony is a nice guy and I know him, but he's gotten to the place where he is deep denial and can't find what it takes to acknowledge his errors.

Gordon Ross dropped away from the truth movement because he realized some of his work was wrong and that the debates were of such a low level he decided it was a waste of time.

The remaining hard core are the followers and those politically driven by their distrust of the gov (such as you and HD). Gov lies so it must be covering up an inside job. But yes... the official story has mistakes and flaws... but the entire thing is not a lie and a cover up of CD. Yes 911 was cynically used to advance an imperial agenda... and that has nothing to do with how those building collapsed. There are many intelligent people who have fallen for the 911 truth narrative.

It was interesting to see how many "experts" on the AE911T ESO made statements without having studied the visual record or the actual structures and data derived from the event. This includes the biologist Lynn Margulis who fell right into the trap of listening to other experts about matter she was not equipped to analyze. She trusted but she didn't verify.
 
mike2810 said:
it is noted your post provides opinion with no supporting evidence to back up your statements.
Click to expand...

MK is a parrot who repeats what he sees on the 9/11 truth sites. Technically he would be in way over his depth and so all he can do, as many truthers do is cite what someone else said or wrote and can't actually defend it.

Look at the statement: There had to be additional energy to collapse the towers we saw. Often repeated, sounds sensible... but is it actually true? Where are the analysis to prove this statement? It's these sorts of emotional and even scientific sounds statements which are used to sway minds.

Or take - symmetry offered as a tell tale sign of CD. Where did that come from? Where are the facts / analysis to support this statement? While is sounds like evidence (true)... it is not. It's just PR fluff meaning nothing. You don't see AE911T removing this claim in the "pillars of truth" or CDs or interviews, do you?

Have you heard Gage state the dust was 4-12" deep for miles around the WTC after 9/11? That's false. It sounds like it means something and he implies that it means CD despite that the fact is incorrect. Where does that statement come from? Why is it not retracted and repeated instead?

Isn't it irresponsible to convey false statements? And use them to influence others?
 
So basically we have no CT truther willing to take a stand on who is correct Jones or Prager regarding the use of nukes.
Not surprising.

While I disagree on many things Jones has written, his stance on nukes is more creditable. So imo, Prager is just feeding the CT crowd and is not correct. Jones in his rebuttal gives a more reasonable case that there was no nukes.
 
psikeyhackr said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a physics problem, especially from the perspective of a physicist like yourself.

But it is more than just a physics problem.

It is also highly political, military, and social, plus many other things. IMO, the coverup is worse than the crime itself, but certainly those 2 things are hand-in-glove.

You and I agree that explosives were used. It is possible that both thermite and nuclear were used, though I think we agree that thermite is not an explosive so much as it is an incendiary.

I think the case for nuclear is strong, and if that was the case, then it's hard not to conclude that Jones was steering the discussion AWAY from nuclear, especially given his strong background in nuclear science.
 
Henry David said:
Yes, it is a physics problem, especially from the perspective of a physicist like yourself.

But it is more than just a physics problem.

It is also highly political, military, and social, plus many other things. IMO, the coverup is worse than the crime itself, but certainly those 2 things are hand-in-glove.
Click to expand...

The other issues become derivative problems after the physics is solved.

The people running the schools would be stuck explaining why they said nothing for 12 years. Kids starting college now were in first grade in 2001.

No matter what the truth is the lack of experimentation to test the issue is pretty suspicious.

So this should be talked about centuries from now just as Galileo's dispute with the Church was a milestone in history.

psik
 
it facinates me that this thread has drifted off. But I expected that. Seems when faced with an issue some care not to look into it.

No one ones to refutes Jones reply to Pragers mini nukes.
 
mike2810 said:
So basically we have no CT truther willing to take a stand on who is correct Jones or Prager regarding the use of nukes.
Not surprising.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it is not surprising. It seems to be standard operating procedure to throw a bunch of crap at the wall and see what sticks. No matter if there's disagreement or contradiction between the parties or their claims, all of these things taken together are somehow supposed to add up to a preponderance of evidence.

Can you imagine a prosecutor trying to secure a conviction by calling a series of witnesses who tell mutually exclusive stories and only agree on one detail - that the defendant did it?

I saw the defendant slip quietly out of the back of the store and hop into a van with at least three other guys, which sped away.
I saw the defendant run out of the front of the store and fire several random shots into bystanders, then hail a cab.
The defendant was not in the store, but drove the getaway car.
The defendant was not on the scene, but masterminded the whole operation and directed it by cell-phone while it took place.

Without even recognizing the inconsistencies and outright contradiction, all of the statements are piled together as if they reinforce each other instead of negating each other. Worse yet, after specific individuals and/or claims get discredited, they can be dropped without concern. As in:

I suspect Jones may be an agent provocateur...

Well, what does that imply - if true - about the standards and integrity of the online conspiracy-pushing "publication" Journal of Nine Eleven Studies (coincident acronym of JONES)? AE911Truth? Jones effectively runs the first and is heavily and visibly associated with the latter. How many CTers hang their hat on the Jones analysis "proving" thermite? Might it cause a problem if one of the most vaunted public faces of the technical side of 9/11 Truth is an agent of deception?

Nawww!

Much more sensible to ignore that and instead accuse people posting in obscure forums of being paid shills!
 
Kat Dorman said:
...Can you imagine a prosecutor trying to secure a conviction by calling a series of witnesses who tell mutually exclusive stories and only agree on one detail - that the defendant did it?...
Click to expand...
Indeed - "they" seem to be blissfully unaware that childish debating tricks used on Internet forums would not survive in court. Or in the para-legal setting of a "New Investigation". They routinely ask for "subpoena powers" but overlook that any "New Investigation" would involve cross examination. The first comment they would hear from the opponents likely to be "Submit no case to answer M'lord" (Ooops - "your honor" - US jurisdiction :roll: - same legal point.) The defence doesn't have to even respond if the case is not "made out" to prima facie standard. The lay persons terminology "thrown out of court!"

Then don't forget the ozeco hypothesis - "most truthers cannot think" - and the corollary that "being unable to think was probably what caused them to become truthers".

IMO that is an interesting reversal of the usual view of the causality.
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
The other issues become derivative problems after the physics is solved.

The people running the schools would be stuck explaining why they said nothing for 12 years. Kids starting college now were in first grade in 2001.

No matter what the truth is the lack of experimentation to test the issue is pretty suspicious.

So this should be talked about centuries from now just as Galileo's dispute with the Church was a milestone in history.

psik
Click to expand...

What you find as suspicious, I find as typical behavior, consistent with other deceptions by government over many years, perhaps centuries, but certainly decades. Yes, the reaction of the powers-that-be is consistent with their treatment of Galileo.
 
ozeco41 said:
Indeed - "they" seem to be blissfully unaware that childish debating tricks used on Internet forums would not survive in court. Or in the para-legal setting of a "New Investigation". They routinely ask for "subpoena powers" but overlook that any "New Investigation" would involve cross examination. The first comment they would hear from the opponents likely to be "Submit no case to answer M'lord" (Ooops - "your honor" - US jurisdiction :roll: - same legal point.) The defence doesn't have to even respond if the case is not "made out" to prima facie standard. The lay persons terminology "thrown out of court!"

Then don't forget the ozeco hypothesis - "most truthers cannot think" - and the corollary that "being unable to think was probably what caused them to become truthers".

IMO that is an interesting reversal of the usual view of the causality.
Click to expand...

A little news for you mate--this is NOT a proper court in the sense you offer, this is the Court Of Public Opinion. Yes, there is a difference. In a government court, only the evidence the court allows is able to be considered by the jury. That is an easy way to have a verdict issued that favors the government at the expense of the truth. Don't know about 'down under', but such behavior is all too common here in the US.

In the court of public opinion, we can consider all the evidence and facts. ;)
 
Menard_K said:
We are ALL EXPERTS ON THIS BUS!

Never forget, your creator endowed you with the ability to think & reason.
USE IT!
Click to expand...

Your creator did not endow you with anything because there is no creator.
 
SanderO said:
Your creator did not endow you with anything because there is no creator.
Click to expand...

You have no creator .... therefore you have no mind? ..... what?
 
Menard_K said:
You have no creator .... therefore you have no mind? ..... what?
Click to expand...

I have a mind because I have an education and sensory awareness and a brain capable of of it. Read Godel, Escher & Bach.

God has nothing to do with my thinking.
 
SanderO said:
Your creator did not endow you with anything because there is no creator.
Click to expand...

Seems like you completely missed the point Jeffrey, and in the process attempted to change the subject.
 
SanderO said:
Your creator did not endow you with anything because there is no creator.
Click to expand...

Jeez, and people have accused me of being Off Topic. LOL

Yeah, atheists think that being atheists is proof that they are intelligent. :lamo

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Jeez, and people have accused me of being Off Topic. LOL

Yeah, atheists think that being atheists is proof that they are intelligent. :lamo

psik
Click to expand...

I didn't off a proof of anything. I responded the creator comment.
 
SanderO said:
I didn't off a proof of anything. I responded the creator comment.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you offered not proof but said there is no creator. Your usual modus operandi.

But also off topic. LOL

psik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom