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

[SanderO]

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

But also off topic. LOL

psik

And what is your MO? paper loops and scale models which forbid PE?

 

[psikeyhackr]

And what is your MO? paper loops and scale models which forbid PE?

How can a physical model in a gravitational field FORBID PE?

Are you capable of even thinking about what you are saying?

psik

 

[mike2810]

How can a physical model in a gravitational field FORBID PE?

Are you capable of even thinking about what you are saying?

psik

amazing how fast you all take things off topic.

The thread is about who is about Jones and Prager and the use of claimed nukes.

 

[psikeyhackr]

amazing how fast you all take things off topic.

The thread is about who is about Jones and Prager and the use of claimed nukes.

I was responding to what SanderO said about PE. ROFL

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

amazing how fast you all take things off topic.

The thread is about who is about Jones and Prager and the use of claimed nukes.

I already said mini nukes are explosives. And I have said airliner impacts and fire could not do it.

What more is there to say about it?

psik

 

[mike2810]

I already said mini nukes are explosives. And I have said airliner impacts and fire could not do it.

What more is there to say about it?

psik

for you... nothing.

 

[Menard_K]

for you... nothing.

Considering the fact that the GOV.
has been actively pursuing new & improved weapons designs,
such as Nukes that produce less "fall out" than the previous designs.
How does anyone know for certain that such a weapon doesn't exist?

We already have info on the vintage 1950's Tactical Nuke .... what would
prevent the development of a weapon that would do what was observed
on 9/11/2001?

 

[mike2810]

Considering the fact that the GOV.
has been actively pursuing new & improved weapons designs,
such as Nukes that produce less "fall out" than the previous designs.
How does anyone know for certain that such a weapon doesn't exist?

We already have info on the vintage 1950's Tactical Nuke .... what would
prevent the development of a weapon that would do what was observed
on 9/11/2001?

once again MK, it is up to you to show nukes where used.

As far as your question how do we know for certain that such a weapon doesn't exits? What does that have to do with 911?
If you are now siding with the use of nukes in 911, you need to show us that was the case. I don't need to disprove that nukes were not used.

The more I read of Prager's book the more I see a trend of using partial data and spinning it to his conclusion.

His book gives a clue in the beginning, when he writes "Once upon a Time"...

Yes, he has spun a fairy tail.:mrgreen:

 

[Menard_K]

once again MK, it is up to you to show nukes where used.

As far as your question how do we know for certain that such a weapon doesn't exits? What does that have to do with 911?
If you are now siding with the use of nukes in 911, you need to show us that was the case. I don't need to disprove that nukes were not used.

The more I read of Prager's book the more I see a trend of using partial data and spinning it to his conclusion.

His book gives a clue in the beginning, when he writes "Once upon a Time"...

Yes, he has spun a fairy tail.:mrgreen:

once upon a time ... there were these 19 Arab Fanatics
who conspired together to hijack commercial airliners
& crash them into buildings....... or?

oh well ......

 

[SanderO]

once upon a time ... there were these 19 Arab Fanatics
who conspired together to hijack commercial airliners
& crash them into buildings....... or?

oh well ......

Why is this unthinkable? Are you aware of Bojinka?

 

[Menard_K]

Why is this unthinkable? Are you aware of Bojinka?

Not "unthinkable" however much less likely to have happened than the alternatives.
How do you know that Bojinka isn't a fabrication of the same monster that produced
the attack of 9/11/2001?

 

[SanderO]

Not "unthinkable" however much less likely to have happened than the alternatives.
How do you know that Bojinka isn't a fabrication of the same monster that produced
the attack of 9/11/2001?

Who says it's less likely? I say it's more likely because of blow back for US policies. There's a motive.

 

[mike2810]

once upon a time ... there were these 19 Arab Fanatics
who conspired together to hijack commercial airliners
& crash them into buildings....... or?

oh well ......

off topic.
and can you show me where any official govt report on 911 started that way?
quit trolling.

 

[Menard_K]

Who says it's less likely? I say it's more likely because of blow back for US policies. There's a motive.

When you add up MOTIVE, MEANS, & OPPORTUNITY, where does that point?

 

[SanderO]

When you add up MOTIVE, MEANS, & OPPORTUNITY, where does that point?

To several possibilities. MMO is not evidence. If someone has MMO then question them and produce evidence of their involvement. Otherwise this is just fantasy.

 

[Menard_K]

To several possibilities. MMO is not evidence. If someone has MMO then question them and produce evidence of their involvement. Otherwise this is just fantasy.

it is alleged that the destruction of the twin towers & WTC7 constitutes the mother of all chain-reactions, HOWEVER, I submit to you that this would be a highly unlikely possibility for three buildings to behave as if they were a line of dominoes set up & ready to fall in sequence. The completeness of the destruction is a key element in all this, WHY isn't there an example of more stuff such as desks, chairs, computers (etc... ) in the rubble? the totality of destruction indicates that the destruction was a planned event intended to destroy as much as possible ALL of the stuff in the twin towers & WTC7.

Have you ever seen an example of a car caught in a rock slide? its very well beaten & shows a LOT of damage all over, ..... given the nature of the steel extracted from the rubble at ground zero, where is the evidence that there had been an active mass of concrete rubble acting upon the structure?

 

[mike2810]

it is alleged that the destruction of the twin towers & WTC7 constitutes the mother of all chain-reactions, HOWEVER, I submit to you that this would be a highly unlikely possibility for three buildings to behave as if they were a line of dominoes set up & ready to fall in sequence. The completeness of the destruction is a key element in all this, WHY isn't there an example of more stuff such as desks, chairs, computers (etc... ) in the rubble? the totality of destruction indicates that the destruction was a planned event intended to destroy as much as possible ALL of the stuff in the twin towers & WTC7.

Have you ever seen an example of a car caught in a rock slide? its very well beaten & shows a LOT of damage all over, ..... given the nature of the steel extracted from the rubble at ground zero, where is the evidence that there had been an active mass of concrete rubble acting upon the structure?

Have you read Prager's ebook?
Have you read Jones rebuttal to use of nukes.

So far no one has shown Jones to be incorrect.

"Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
author: Steven E. Jones

Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/nukes.html

 

[Menard_K]

Have you read Prager's ebook?
Have you read Jones rebuttal to use of nukes.

So far no one has shown Jones to be incorrect.

"Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
author: Steven E. Jones

Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Nuclear Devices Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers'

For the sake of not speculating on things that do NOT need the speculation at this time,
I am limiting my bit here to the fact that there had to have been an additional source of
energy at work to destroy the towers & WTC7. I really don't care if it was black powder
or black magic, the result is the same, destruction of the towers & WTC7 .....

 

[SanderO]

it is alleged that the destruction of the twin towers & WTC7 constitutes the mother of all chain-reactions, HOWEVER, I submit to you that this would be a highly unlikely possibility for three buildings to behave as if they were a line of dominoes set up & ready to fall in sequence. The completeness of the destruction is a key element in all this, WHY isn't there an example of more stuff such as desks, chairs, computers (etc... ) in the rubble? the totality of destruction indicates that the destruction was a planned event intended to destroy as much as possible ALL of the stuff in the twin towers & WTC7.

Have you ever seen an example of a car caught in a rock slide? its very well beaten & shows a LOT of damage all over, ..... given the nature of the steel extracted from the rubble at ground zero, where is the evidence that there had been an active mass of concrete rubble acting upon the structure?

Chain reaction are not "set up" all mechanical and chemical events have consequences... and those consequences have consequences... and with a billion interactions it looks chaotic but it produces the event call total destruction of the tower.

 

[mike2810]

For the sake of not speculating on things that do NOT need the speculation at this time,
I am limiting my bit here to the fact that there had to have been an additional source of
energy at work to destroy the towers & WTC7. I really don't care if it was black powder
or black magic, the result is the same, destruction of the towers & WTC7 .....

You don't care, but you need to see the data for any computer simulation?

You have yet to demonstrate beyond a doubt that additional energy was needed.

and ps. you seem to speculate all the time.:mrgreen:

 

[Menard_K]

You don't care, but you need to see the data for any computer simulation?

You have yet to demonstrate beyond a doubt that additional energy was needed.

and ps. you seem to speculate all the time.:mrgreen:

OK, from a statistics & probability stand point, you can easily say that
it is totally improbable for you to roll box-cars 10 times in a row,
( that is unless the dice have been tampered with ... )
Likewise it can be asserted based on probability that it is highly unlikely
that two airliner hits to steel framed sky scrapers would produce the
exact same result that is the "aircraft" disappearing totally inside the building,
and leaving the same impression in the wall, that is with the wings having penetrated also.
it is highly improbable that steel framed skyscrapers would succumb to "chain-reaction"
failures resulting in the total destruction of not only the building itself but of the contents
of said building.

These buildings stood for decades through storms, & even fire, and at no time was there a
threat of structural failure. however on 9/11/2001 the buildings behaved as if they had a
built-in zipper and would simply UNZIP given the right trigger for the event, pardon me if
I'm not buying this stuff at all. Airliners were NOT used as weapons on 9/11/2001
and the whole fiasco about 19 Arab Fanatics constitutes a FALSE FLAG operation.

 

[SanderO]

Likewise it can be asserted based on probability that it is highly unlikely
that two airliner hits to steel framed sky scrapers would produce the
exact same result that is the "aircraft" disappearing totally inside the building,
and leaving the same impression in the wall, that is with the wings having penetrated also.

It would be more improbable if the they produced different results... seems to show what to expect when one flies a jumbo into a WTC twin tower design.

Your reasoning is completely ass backwards. You decided it is impossible and then when it happens a 2nd time you offer that as proof that it was indeed impossible using probability. Huh?

Those buildings did not stand for decades after a jumbo had slammed into them with almost a full tank of fuel, and loss sprinklers, fire protection.. with uncontrolled fires burning. One stood for an hour and the other an hour and a half.

 

[mike2810]

OK, from a statistics & probability stand point, you can easily say that
it is totally improbable for you to roll box-cars 10 times in a row,
( that is unless the dice have been tampered with ... )
Likewise it can be asserted based on probability that it is highly unlikely
that two airliner hits to steel framed sky scrapers would produce the
exact same result that is the "aircraft" disappearing totally inside the building,
and leaving the same impression in the wall, that is with the wings having penetrated also.
it is highly improbable that steel framed skyscrapers would succumb to "chain-reaction"
failures resulting in the total destruction of not only the building itself but of the contents
of said building.

These buildings stood for decades through storms, & even fire, and at no time was there a
threat of structural failure. however on 9/11/2001 the buildings behaved as if they had a
built-in zipper and would simply UNZIP given the right trigger for the event, pardon me if
I'm not buying this stuff at all. Airliners were NOT used as weapons on 9/11/2001
and the whole fiasco about 19 Arab Fanatics constitutes a FALSE FLAG operation.

and this demonstrates, what?

MK, don't recall them being hit with a jet and had fires to extent they did before 911.

 

[Menard_K]

and this demonstrates, what?

MK, don't recall them being hit with a jet and had fires to extent they did before 911.

Even if a commercial airliner had been used as a missile .....
The damage & fire from that, would NOT have been a guaranteed for certain
complete & total destruction of the towers. ( not to mention WTC7 )
Look at the big picture here, the total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings
+ the destruction of ALL of the stuff inside said buildings. & this was an inevitable
consequence of the TERRORIST attack ..... right .....

 

[mike2810]

Even if a commercial airliner had been used as a missile .....
The damage & fire from that, would NOT have been a guaranteed for certain
complete & total destruction of the towers. ( not to mention WTC7 )
Look at the big picture here, the total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings
+ the destruction of ALL of the stuff inside said buildings. & this was an inevitable
consequence of the TERRORIST attack ..... right .....

Your right there was no guarantee of the plane/fire would destroy the buildings.
That was the end result.