- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 39,244
- Reaction score
- 22,620
- 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
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