Nuked! (New free e-book, on 9/11, by Jeff Prager)

[Praxis]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Cilka (here)
Dr Judy Wood's research is the best so far, your friend should look into it.

If you read other works of Prager, you will see that he is well aware of Judy Wood's research. Prager gives Wood credit for coining the word "dustification", but finds the vague notion of a "directed energy weapon" to be a distraction.

Judy Wood has accumulated and presented evidence that is important to understanding the World Trade Center events of 9/11.

But Prager, in my view, has gone further in other aspects of that day, and with this work, appears to be making further progress in understanding the actually technology used on the towers.

I am not sure how a nuclear device would explain the lack of damage to the surrounding buildings. Furthermore, if it was a heat reaction why did the paper not burn as well?
If he is trying to say that a nuclear powered energy based weapon was used, then I would like to know more. If he states that it is an explosion of any shape or form, then I do not find the evidence to be in alignment with that mode of thought. Clearly it was not an explosion to bring the towers down. The damage was too well controlled for this to be the case.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by 9ofClubs (here)
I am not sure how a nuclear device would explain the lack of damage to the surrounding buildings. Furthermore, if it was a heat reaction why did the paper not burn as well?
If he is trying to say that a nuclear powered energy based weapon was used, then I would like to know more. If he states that it is an explosion of any shape or form, then I do not find the evidence to be in alignment with that mode of thought. Clearly it was not an explosion to bring the towers down. The damage was too well controlled for this to be the case.

I'd encourage you to read more details in what Prager writes.

It was, by his account, not simply one big explosion, but several small nukes (*), every dozen or so floors. It was not simply a raging inferno of heat (as would clearly have burnt the paper too) but rather predominantly bursts of neutrons which disassociate most solid materials, such as bones, metal and concrete, turning them to fine dust. There were pockets of extreme heat that remained for months, but those were localized.

The finer you grind some solid, the more energy it takes. Think how much harder you'd have to work to grind a concrete cinder block into talcum powder fine dust than to break it into a few big chunks. Many more molecular bonds must be broken. Most of the few hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete in the towers was converted to very fine dust, in less than ten seconds each. That is an enormous amount of energy expended, in a very short time.

(*) -- I'm only a quarter way through reading this latest work of Prager, so may have misrepresented some detail above.

[Bo Atkinson]

What caught my humble-tradesman eye foremost were:
RE: http://www.datafilehost.com/download-0b54ce25.html
(As downloaded on March 23)

Pgs 84-85 The cleanly undulated bedrock appearance of the photographed 'Pit' is described as "signature of a fusion-fission reaction". Closer inspection reveals low resolution images. I take-back my initial, unmagnified-glance and wrong estimate of depth. Googling Dimitri + Khalezov + 911 brings up these same pictures, which refreshes my memory, same pictures, not new ones. Possibly someone did a Photoshop/Image/ImageSize/Scale-up_%. The pit may go 15 meters beneath what, the bathtub floor? The washed-surface-look begs my question: Could this match lab-glazing of same rock type? Hmm. Apple sized nukes, millisecond blast duration, in a basement recess? I don't know. We may or may not see peer-review on these points. At least Judy Wood has photo citations which can be traced. Prager gives no attribution on these photos, (which i first saw associated Dimitri's theory, which asserted nukes buried at 50meter deep (1960's era nukes, demolition treaty,etc..)

Pg 136: Quote: "The Fountain, at left, needs no explanation. The forceful upwards explosions are quite apparent. The signature clouds of a nuclear demolition are obvious. "
Hmm, is that really all for now? The upward thrust, according to this assertion, is more vertical than horizontal. Hmm... Is it a directional nuke? Is it an apple-nuke on every floor so perfectly timed at free fall speeds and so vertical-beam-like, that only restricted vertical zones get dustified? Interesting. How does this fit building 7 vids?

[Dennis Leahy]

Radio interview of Jeff Prager, by Mike Harris: http://www.elusivetruth.com/2012/03/...y-jeff-prager/

Dennis

[PookztA]

Posted by 9ofClubs (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Cilka (here)
Dr Judy Wood's research is the best so far, your friend should look into it.

If you read other works of Prager, you will see that he is well aware of Judy Wood's research. Prager gives Wood credit for coining the word "dustification", but finds the vague notion of a "directed energy weapon" to be a distraction.

Judy Wood has accumulated and presented evidence that is important to understanding the World Trade Center events of 9/11.

But Prager, in my view, has gone further in other aspects of that day, and with this work, appears to be making further progress in understanding the actually technology used on the towers.

I am not sure how a nuclear device would explain the lack of damage to the surrounding buildings. Furthermore, if it was a heat reaction why did the paper not burn as well?
If he is trying to say that a nuclear powered energy based weapon was used, then I would like to know more. If he states that it is an explosion of any shape or form, then I do not find the evidence to be in alignment with that mode of thought. Clearly it was not an explosion to bring the towers down. The damage was too well controlled for this to be the case.

9ofClubs,

I totally agree with you.

Dr. Judy Wood puts forth in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? that there is no evidence for the use of any kinetic-energy device including "super-duper-micro-mini-nukes" for these reasons:

1.) No significant seismic magnitude
2.) No significant sound evidence
3.) No blast evidence [i.e. the foundation "bathtub" remained intact and did not flood.]
4.) No significant seismic signal traveled through the earth [no S & P waves, only surface waves (p. 87-88)]
5.) No bright flash or blinding light
6.) No evidence of high heat [e.g. much unburned paper, no steam explosions with rain]

Right after 9/11, the back side of Hurricane Erin dumped a lot of rain on Manhattan. If there had been hot pockets, there would have been steam explosions. As Dr. Wood shows in her book, the rain decreased the rising haze/fumes (page 275).

Dr. Wood presents in her textbook that a more accurate term for the mechanism that caused the "dustification" of two quarter mile high skyscrapers with a combined weight of more than one million tons is "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions." The use of the word "nuclear" is in reference to a type of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) (also known as "cold fusion") and should not be confused with a conventional nuclear reaction such as a nuclear bomb (e.g. nukes, mini-nukes, pocket nukes, milli-nukes, micro-nukes, or even super-duper-mini-nano-thermite-nukes). ;-)

The term Dr. Wood uses for the mechanism ("magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions") can be found in Chapter 17 of her book, The Tesla-Hutchison Effect, Section I. Apparent Transmutation, page 365, 3rd line from the top. Dr. Wood has identified the process, but prefers to emphasize understanding the empirical evidence rather than a name that few will understand. (p. 451-2) Dr. Wood has said that it involved a nuclear process, but not nukes. Dr. Wood discussed this when she was on the Coast-to-Coast radio show last spring and they even put it in the description of the interview.

No one has refuted anything in her book. I don't think they can. So if you were in charge of the cover up, how might you cover this up?

Thanks,

-Abe

[Dennis Leahy]

I have read a bit about Judy Wood's ideas, and heard her interviewed, (and have not read her book.) I cannot remember if she addresses these issues:

Where does she think the directed-energy weapons were located? Satellite-based? Ground-based? Inside the building? (and if so, where? : basement? multiple weapons on multiple floors?)

I'm visualizing something between lasers and microwaves, when I think of energy being "directed."

"Bombs bursting in air", to quote an obnoxious national anthem, would not register on a seismograph - or at least not much. The seismographic signature is thus a red herring.

There was clearly explosive destruction going on, floor-by-floor. It is pretty easy to see, in the videos. I guess I cannot wrap my head around how directed energy could cause outward, relatively symmetrical ejected debris, floor-by-floor explosions that look like explosions - in fact, that look just like explosives planted floor by floor. Does Judy wood say how she thinks directed energy could work to mimic explosions? I do not doubt we have energy weapons, but I would expect to see something in the destruction more like what a microwave does to an object, or what a laser beam does to an object. If the energy is coming from just one direction, I would expect to see action/reaction, from a vectored force, just like the "back and to the left" of JFK's head.

Does LENR produce the radioactive decay elemental signature the same as mini-nukes would? Jeff prager and the physicists he's consulting show that the signature is consistent with mini-nukes.

When you think about the equipment necessary to bring down multiple buildings, yet leave other buildings in the near-vicinity intact (but for a bit of a debris shower), directed energy would probably require multiple "canons" or "dishes" aimed not only at the building, but able to re-direct the energy/"beam" to target within milliseconds each floor to make it appear to be a "collapse." Clearly, they wanted it to look like a collapse (and I'm convinced some piece of their plan did go wrong that day, and Building 7 did not get the "probable cause" that it was supposed to get. Still, they needed that building dropped as well, and just said abracadabra and took it down - and a large chunk of the US population STILL can look at the video of the Building 7 controlled demolition and shrug and repeat what they were told, "fire did it."

I don't want to go too much round and round debating Judy Wood's hypothesis, as I have not purchased or read her book. Maybe she explains the answers or reasonable guesstimates to those answers that would satisfy me. But, (without me personally talking this over, at length, with physicists) this info from Jeff Prager appears to me to explain the event very satisfactorily. Further, (and as he mentions in the radio interview), one guy, even an unwitting accomplice (like a computer technician delivering a computer or big-ass printer (with a hidden mini-nuke inside) to each target floor could have easily "rigged" all of the buildings for demolition in a day or two. It easily passes the feasibility test, whereas the directed energy weapon capable of mimicking multiple timed detonations is extraordinarily far fetched (in my opinion.)

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

I am removing three posts of gooty64 above. He raised some concerns that PookztA and 9ofClubs were "9/11 debunkers". While I share gooty64's concern with such (and have previously removed at least one member from our forum, for just that reason), I don't come to the same conclusions as gooty64, so would rather not distract this thread too much from Jeff Prager's work, ridiculing nukes and raising conflict between members.

Aside to gooty64 - one of PookztA or 9ofClubs does have other interests on this forum, besides 9/11, and the other has been firmly supportive of Judy Wood's work. She may not have gotten it all right, but the only one I know who might be closer is Jeff Prager.

In my mind I actually am toying with integrating Prager and Wood --- the unusual properties of the muon catalyzed fusion that Prager speculates might have been used on the WTC buildings on 9/11 might be just the "directed energy weapon" for which Judy Wood finds evidence.

Judy Wood does not speculate on the details of the directed energy weapon she speaks of, other than to notice some interesting parallels with some of the devices John Hutchinson has been experimenting with. She observes from the evidence that an immense amount of energy in some high tech form was focused on those buildings in a very short period of time. Prager may have uncovered the technology used to generate that energy.

Perhaps Wood and Prager are less at odds with each other than it seems.

In any case, I agree with and support Dennis's preference not to turn this thread into a Judy Wood debate.

[ThePythonicCow]

This thread was temporarily closed to remove some off topic and distracting posts and replies. It is reopen now.

[Bo Atkinson]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
I have read a bit about Judy Wood's ideas, and heard her interviewed, (and have not read her book.) I cannot remember if she addresses these issues:

Where does she think the directed-energy weapons were located? Satellite-based? Ground-based? Inside the building? (and if so, where? : basement? multiple weapons on multiple floors?)

I'm visualizing something between lasers and microwaves, when I think of energy being "directed.".........[snip].....

Dennis

I might partly agree Dennis, except the only published 'DEW' work is disqualified as what? Not sure of the words given, but John Hutchison has on multiple occasions actually produced results in front of TV crews, media-minors and also some top US lab reps have visited him to see his home-lab and there is much more to reference there with plenty of credentials to go around. He's a straight-up and very politely mannered guy. He offers samples, disassociated metal samples he produced, neighbor complaints, demos levitation effects etc.... Not from a ray-guns or dishes but rather from nearly unseen emitters... All this is done with power levels measuring from 30 watts up to several kilo watts, is it? This is the the power level of home consumer devices...... Judy's book covers so much of this and references it all at length and also points to what little data is unclassified. Her expertise is engineering forensics. She documents evidence and analyses evidence, but does not actually theorize. My point being that the 'antenna' used or the beam-array-device(s) is(are) actually of classified nature, regarding multi-million-dollar levels... Hutchison did his thing without much more than signal-generators of varied frequency bands along with electrostatic generators, by mixing the freqs and phase angles.-- One can see his vids all over, while he tunes his surplus-equipment like a short-wave-wizzard. The top secret devices could manifest in anyones guess as to shape, size, locations, etc.... Where the dustifications manifested differently, ie: building 7 vs the towers.... That is a huge question as to why they dustified in differing manners.

It will become increasingly difficult to discuss this issue without increasingly complex comparisons of technologies out there. We are presently in chaos theory. I'm leaning towards the notion that time is actually particle-flows, or our unique distortion of mind which reads these flows as history, etc....

Whether we say the weapon used waves or used particles, whether it used resonators or used nukes, is secondary in my humble opinion. The nano tech is surely interesting but may or may not prove to be humanities break through to the next dimension or the next paradigm of science.

[Bo Atkinson]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by 9ofClubs (here)
I am not sure how a nuclear device would explain the lack of damage to the surrounding buildings. Furthermore, if it was a heat reaction why did the paper not burn as well?
If he is trying to say that a nuclear powered energy based weapon was used, then I would like to know more. If he states that it is an explosion of any shape or form, then I do not find the evidence to be in alignment with that mode of thought. Clearly it was not an explosion to bring the towers down. The damage was too well controlled for this to be the case.

I'd encourage you to read more details in what Prager writes.

It was, by his account, not simply one big explosion, but several small nukes (*), every dozen or so floors. It was not simply a raging inferno of heat (as would clearly have burnt the paper too) but rather predominantly bursts of neutrons which disassociate most solid materials, such as bones, metal and concrete, turning them to fine dust. There were pockets of extreme heat that remained for months, but those were localized.

The finer you grind some solid, the more energy it takes. Think how much harder you'd have to work to grind a concrete cinder block into talcum powder fine dust than to break it into a few big chunks. Many more molecular bonds must be broken. Most of the few hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete in the towers was converted to very fine dust, in less than ten seconds each. That is an enormous amount of energy expended, in a very short time.

(*) -- I'm only a quarter way through reading this latest work of Prager, so may have misrepresented some detail above.

Granted it takes time to sift through "dustification evidence". Nano tech fabricating machines are interesting, potentially leading into AI aspects beyond and beyond. (Not covered in this PDF)... Indeed we might consider the Camelot/Avalon interviews on that too....

However, let us postulate one apple sized nuke at every floor, or even a smaller one... Now, to fit evidence, we would need to dustify each floor almost completely-- To account for very little remains on the ground level. We would also need to produce enough energy to dustify all the concrete and steel of each floor. While at the same time, not cause mu ch lateral damage of adjacent buildings, close by.

This would require a complex, geometrically accurate energy pattern. To fit that exact 3d geometry of each full floor. Otherwise lateral energy would also emerge from each glass window. If it was the equivalent required to dustify the concrete+steel floor, what would it do coming out of the window? Here enters the conundrum.

Prager mentions nuke blasts having large upwards blast clouds. However, he does not provide references to show that nuke blasts emit principally vertical blast energy, while attenuating the lateral effects. Some of us are attempting to present this aspect. Nor does this PDF discuss anything about containment of blast patterns restricted to fit the rectilinear, "geometric-volumes" of individual floors. Such as to 'protect' the adjacent buildings.

The directionality of the blast geometry has to remain key. Regardless of whose theory is considered. The evidence seen by all who suffered that day, combined with the evidence collected in videos and photos and multiple scientific devices.... All of it combined together still presents us with a highly contained vertical dustification. Except for building 7 which, it may seem was completely dustified, perhaps one floor at a time in a very restricted geometry at the ground level. How was that managed? Like a "nuke lawn mower blade" whacking each floor, one at a time, all in the same 3d space at ground level, (at free fall speed).

Videos showed the steel shells (beside building 7) dustifying more slowly-- While not showing bulging effects at each floor midway between each floor. Granted a further theory could eventually be advanced which might later say that the nano-nukes smolders the steel more slowly, while the wheat check sections fell downwards, later,( while a small fraction of steel managed to travel sideways without dustifying.) Much older news of nuke weapons hinted that some nukes indeed emitted energy-beams of some sort, rather than propulsive kinetic energy. Latent energy effects might be part of the explanation. In any event the evidence still demands that all such energies remain very contained within a very tight geometric-volumes (spaces), as defined by the buildings. (In terms of immediate energy effects, in contrast to biological damage effects of energy or particles, which may turn up in the future).

Yet, whatever the mechanisms, the weaponry is able to work at the 3d-ground-floor-volume ( in building 7)... in addition to the other methods in the towers, which appear to have been dustified in-situ. Two differing manners, leaving behind a similar real-estate scene afterwards.

With all due respect, it still appears to me that DR Wood and John Hutchison have well-integrated the structural forensics combined with demonstrations of the energy effect-evidence , (all with low wattage experiments, in a home lab).... Mind you, John was near by his experiments which disassociated metals while the effects did not hurt him-- Implying, he was able to contain the dissociative-energy within an apartment building home space-- Implying restricted emission geometry of dissociative energies, within high grade metals. This is documentented in Dr Wood's book.

Naturally citizens are reluctant to question officialdom. I do so because i served for 10 years on my voluntary-fire-department, my civil service to my people in my town and thereby my country.

I will look forward to reading what comes forward in this discussion concerning precise, geometric, dustification patterns in the use of nukes. I'm highly impressed by the literacy of Avalonians in the general sciences and do hope to enhance my education here.

Thanks everyone for committed concern for seeking the truth in this event.

[PookztA]

Posted by wavydome (here)
Well, i actually got through it all and with close interest, via text-to-mp3..... I listened while i work at my humble concrete project and weeding the garden before the planting, up here in the northern cold. Actually a good environment to 'ground' out the electronic noise, which intentionally infects our world today.

The nuke aspect interested me the most. Prager powerfully presents available history on nano-technology and it sounded informed and relevant to me. His suggestion of apple sized nuke devices does sound applicable in a generalized sense. I almost felt inspired to graphically model it as my mind enjoys visual complexity. I'm not so sure he nor anyone else has at hand, the complete tech data to prove this nuke version in court. Yet Prager does sound able to win a debate with Dr Jones. Not that i claim precise knowledge here.

I could go on and on, but as an artist really, my expectation is that my words are of less interest. Foremost, though, let me thank Prager for his work efforts and a struggle that we all should share, truth over power.

If we were to compare and meld tech details with visualizations, with leading theories out there, count me in. Yet from my stance, i would rather visualize it all in sort of a chart form, since most people know how to search out key words and this exercise, (in my preference) would be to fast-scroll through the comparisons within categories, of 911 theory.

Thanks to Avalon supporters too!

PS- A long-trusted, scholarly friend of mine has warned me today, that there might be some sort of plagiarism involved or perhaps it was lack of needed citations.... I received several comments and don't want to spend days on this matter, scanning here and studying there. So i will leave it Mr Prager to handle his own public image. I'm not an eagle-eyed proof-reader to scan through and verify scholarly matters. Yet i would respect that long established institution, which handles things with strict protocol. My focus is visualization of physics and creative interpretations. I want to be authentic and can remain honest with artistic license. I'm very limited in publishing skills. The apple-sized nukes appeal like old stories of suitcase nukes, but such a scenario still would require directed-energy, to prevent too much sideways-propulsion... In order to match the evidence of very little adjacent damage).

Wavydome,

I agree that Mr. Prager's documents have a very large volume of plagiarism in them, not to mention the large collection of images that are on Dr. Wood's website. I was actually shocked by how good he is at slinging together the work of other people. A great deal of the text was lifted directly from Wikipedia, word-for-word, and often by the page. It is fairly easy to google phrases where he discusses technology and it typically brings up a wikipedia page. For example, I googled sentences on 11 pages in a row and found that whole paragraphs, multiple paragraphs, and entire articles had been copied.

If Mr. Prager is a journalist, he certainly knows better than to copy large sections without attribution. A journalist, of all people, would know this. If Mr. Prager were a college student turning in a thesis with this much plagiarized material, he would most likely be stripped of his degree. Germany's Defense Minister had his PhD stripped for plagiarism just a year ago.
_______________________
German Defence Minister Guttenberg resigns over thesis
1 March 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12608083

"He came under pressure after a Bremen University law professor began reviewing his 2006 thesis with the aid of the internet.

Reports emerged of a passage from a newspaper article that featured word for word, and then of a paragraph from the US embassy website being used without attribution.

Analysts then estimated that more than half the 475-page thesis had long sections lifted from other people's work."
_________________________

Why did Prager do it? It causes one to conclude Prager knows nothing about this technology, so had to copy whole paragraphs from others. He is clearly experienced with cut and paste. Sadly, it appears there is very little (if any) original content in his "book." It speaks volumes about his lack of intellectual integrity.

I started on page 100, as that is where a description of muon-catalyzed fusion is first addressed in Mr. Prager's book. It appears he plagiarized all of the technical descriptions and just added commentary here and there.

The sources from where Mr. Prager appears to have copied whole paragraphs are the following sites for the pages shown below.
____________________________________________
(p. 100)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...talyzed_fusion
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Muon-c...32880320080773

(p. 100-101)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion


(pp. 103-104)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

(p. 105)
http://nomoregames.net/2012/01/14/co...ermite-thesis/
by Dr. Morgan Reynolds that was posted on his website January 14, 2012.

(p.106)
http://www.nucleardemolition.com/trouble.html
http://letsrollforums.com/controlled...-t1690p2.html?

(p.107)
http://letsrollforums.com/controlled...-t1690p2.html?
The reference to Gerard Holmgren's site appears on this webpage, but is out of date. He died 2 years ago.

(p. 108)
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kow...onspiracy.html


(p.109) He even used the same section headings for some of these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
http://wn.com/muon_catalyzed_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36911860/7...lly-hot-fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

(p. 110)
http://www.infinite-energy.com/resou...eyexpdata.html
(copied reference list)


(p. 111)
http://www.amfir.com/AmFirstInst/Sym...sby_index.html
http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/08/04/chris-busby/
____________________________

That is 11 pages in a row! I got bored after checking that much. It's clearly a pattern and not "an isolated case of forgetting to cite a source." The most extreme example is his reference list on page 110. He just copied someone else's reference list! That cannot be viewed as a mere oversight. Significant portions are plagiarized from other sites. No wonder why he didn't charge for his "book." He'd have a bunch of lawsuits to contend with. He still may have some.

A journalist knows better than to plagiarize the work of others. So why has he done this?

If it is so obvious that he plagiarized the work of others, it seems like he wants it to be noticed. I wonder why.

Paul, Thank you for your post (#27).

-Abe

[Dennis Leahy]

So, if "plagiarized", is it false?

Someone takes the time to figure out how 9/11 really happened, and you want to bitch and moan that his shoes are dirty? I wouldn't care if he stole the queen's crown and screwed the prince - if his data, or let's say THE data, is correct. Or even "feasible", because I have seen no other explanation for 9/11 that is feasible, including but not limited to the leap of faith of assuming Judy Wood's Harry Potter-esque magic ray gun theory (that happens to leave behind a trail of nuclear decay evidence) is valid because she said so. Describing how an unknown, exotic weapon could do this or do that is like seeing grown men play role-playing games: "Well, you can't kill me because I have an inverse-deflection cloak!"

Yeah, I'm irritated that you would spend so much of your time slinging arrows at the PERSON, and not the collected, collated, cross-referenced, synthesized, dots-connected, information. If you need to feel shocked, why not feel shocked that no one with a physics degree followed the forensic evidence - primarily the dust - saw the big picture, and assembled the pieces. You must know that circumnavigating data and striking with ad hominem attacks is one of the forensic signatures of a debunker, right?

"Debunkers" substitute well in the old lawyers joke: "What's 100 debunkers at the bottom of the ocean?" Answer: "A good start."

You WILL gain the reputation of a 'debunker' if that's the best you can do.

Dennis

[modwiz]

Great job with this thread Dennis. I have my 'eyes wide open' and know what I am seeing. I think closing my eyes would still not stop the peculiar, but familiar aroma of debunking. The handy links are a familiar signature as well, as are the very keen, and seemingly reasonable, minds presenting it.

With Gordon Duff willing to provide a platform for whatever Prager wants to do, I feel comfortable with it being a story most closely fitting the facts.

You and Paul also resonating with it feels good also. I appreciate the intelligence of both of you.

[ThePythonicCow]

I find both the plagiarism troublesome, and the distraction from a useful discussion of what actually happened to those buildings on 9/11 troublesome.

A proper presentation of one's sources is an important part of an honest, shared, investigation into interesting topics. Prager does himself, and all of us, a dis-service by copying and pasting from other sources, without credit. We are dealing with difficult topics here, and the integrity of us all matters.

Unfortunately, on the other hand, focusing overly long on the plagiarism can turn into distracting debunking. And paradoxically, getting angry at the debunking makes it more distracting.

Having noticed this problem with Prager's sources, let us stay calmly focused on the topic at hand ... what happened to the WTC buildings and some related 9/11 issues.

[iceni tribe]

great article from Gorden duff and well worth a read ,fits in nicely with this thread too.

excerpt

We learned to make tiny hydrogen bombs with no residual radiation that would melt office buildings.
We learned to create hydrogen/boron fusion reactions, contain such reactions, and produce “free and unlimited energy,” which was seen as a threat to the world economy
We developed nano-technologies with endless and unlimited applications
We developed liquid hydrogen technologies that were capable of being immediately introduced to replace all internal combustion engines
The actual waste product of the magnetic containment field of a hydrogen/boron reactor is electricity in quantities unimaginable.
The solution to the worlds energy problems from electric power to desalinization of sea water to interstellar drives was solved 20 years ago but judged by the “all knowing,” those “Masters of the Universe” that rule the great democracies, that oil profits and lobbying kickbacks were more important than the progress of mankind.


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04...consistencies/

[Dakota1955]

Hi Dennis. First let me thank you for this post. My name is Jeff Prager and I'd like to address several issues.

First, copyright and author attribution. I've published 36 eMagazines since I sold the magazine I founded and published. Normally I attribute text to the authors of that text. However, when it comes to 911 I'm less vigilant because I'm after the truth and really don't care much about what I get or where it came from. The images of what is described as 'the pit' came from a well known UK newspaper that published an article claiming "Proof Of An Ice Age In NYC" and these images were never published in the US as far as I know. The rest of the Ground Zero images in the book are mine from a FEMA download many years ago. I have 1,000s of FEMA and NIST images and videos. Almost a terabyte. If anyone would care to have the set of 359 images that the images in the book came from, the originals, high resolution, high quality images, simply email me with that request and I'll send you a DropBox.com link that you can access.

I'd like to address Dr. Wood because we ARE at odds. She slammed me and my book just a day or two ago on the radio and I was engaged in a back-and-forth email exchange with her pit bulls for two days. Included in that email, CCd, were Gordon Duff, James Fetzer, PhD, Kevin Barrett and numerous other names you would recognize. Although the email was between just myself and another gentleman very close to Dr. Wood and who was certainly speaking on her behalf no one else CCd responded. However, under separate cover Dr. Fetzer and Gordon Duff expressed their full support.

Allow me to explain why my theory is not theory but rather, simply fact and provide the data to prove so. This is data NO ONE in the 911 truth movement will discuss intimately, including Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones, except for me. I would like to discuss the data I'll link below with Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood but that won't happen because the data proves, in the terms I prefer to use, that we saw "ternary fission and likely quaternary fission in NYC on 911" and I can prove this beyond any doubt. This is called a fact.

I could do that here and it would require posting several dozen charts, graphs and about 15 minutes of text. Better you should understand the physics and chemistry used in our analysis, have a copy, and be able to refer back to it. It's complex but we've created a short PDF that explains this all in laymans terms. I'm not a physicist and neither are the rest of us here (an assumption of course) so if I can understand this, anyone can. I created this PDF specifically so that you will understand it. I should have included these very few pages in the book but I didn't. That's because they already appear in 2 other books I've published to the internet and I didn't want to include them once again. I apologize because that was an error on my part. They should have been included, especially since the people on this forum seem to be genuinely interested in this issue.

To that end, anyone that reads these very few pages and examines the graphed analyses will conclude and can only conclude that we see fission in NYC on 911.

The problem arose in that fission alone did not explain all of the anomalous events we saw and in particular the un-burnt paper. This issue was raised in a comment above. This required further study and the answers were, astonishingly, easy to find. A deuterium tritium or lithium deuteride fusion triggered fission device like Big Ivan, Mike and others, detonated in the 1960s reduced radiation by 97% and created, primarily, massive neutrons. Neutrons pass through paper and are attracted to dense metals and water as they invisibly fly through the atmosphere searching to release their heat. Paper has no mass and can't accept that heat exchange. Dense metals; car engines for example, and water, which comprise 97% of the human body, therefore explains the neutron bombs effects. Thus we see burnt cars, we have evidence in the form of testimony that people were vaporized and there's paper literally everywhere and it's not burned in any way whatsoever.

It took me 2-3 years to understand this aspect of the event and it required some rather tedious and time consuming study. The bottom line is physics and chemistry under certain conditions prove inarguable results and that is the case here. That said, here is the very brief physics and chemistry analysis for those of you that are seriously interested in this issue. Dennis, perhaps you might repost this link and get some feedback?

I created this link for this reason. It's short and it should be easy to follow. Here is the chemistry and physics to support our conclusions which I will stand behind fully. I'm a little new at this so I hope the link appears properly.

http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dakota1955 (here)
I'd like to address Dr. Wood because we ARE at odds. She slammed me and my book just a day or two ago on the radio and I was engaged in a back-and-forth email exchange with her pit bulls for two days ... the email was between just myself and another gentleman very close to Dr. Wood ...

Can you say what radio program that was - or even better, provide a link to it on the web?

Can you describe briefly what justification Judy Wood gave for slamming your work? Did she show familiarity with the details of your work, or just the usual negative knee jerk reaction to the idea that nuclear bombs blew up the WTC buildings?

Can you name the accomplice of Judy Wood with whom you exchanged email?

It would not surprise me if Judy Wood has been allowed to proceed in part because she might have accomplices, whom she trusts, who perhaps shouldn't be entirely trusted. I have -zero- evidence of such in this specific case ... just figure that's one of the ways that the powers that be work. Such accomplices might gladly take the opportunity to create dissension between two 9/11 investigators who have been particularly focused on finding and exposing actual evidence of what happened. This is just speculation on my part at this time.

I have found both of you two, Judy Wood and yourself Jeff Prager, to be more focused on reporting actual physical evidence from the WTC destruction than most other 9/11 researchers. Thank-you for your ongoing efforts.

So far as I can see, there may well not be serious incompatible differences between the evidence you two report. Rather you two each have uncovered different overlapping portions of evidence, which led you two to proposing different dominant mechanisms causing the destruction. Outside of the rather dubious siesmographic data, I've seen little of the evidence that Judy Wood compiled that seriously excludes with your evidence of nuclear fussion and fission (perhaps I missed something ... both of you have compiled a substantial record of evidence.) If some of the evidence she found is not explainable by the nuclear mechanisms you're been more focused on, then that might instead be evidence that multiple mechanisms were used, in various ways.

[Bo Atkinson]

I'll be glad to see more photos... I vaguely remember one of the thermite-plastered-to-central-coulumns theories having a linked set of photos, which i might have downloaded and saved... I'm curous again... So have to look through very old hard drives...

With these new posts, i went to http://www.checktheevidence.com and found this. The extent of references get so long, while the particulars deserve clearer comparisons. I wish people could agree on protocols of discussion, somehow honor the system of attributions and work it out.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...d=11&Itemid=41

Jeff Prager and Mike Harris - 19 March 2012 - America Nuked.mp3 (7.7 MB) (Modified: Apr 13 2012 09:52:54 PM)
Prager Harris 1 031912 080000 c2.mp3 (418 KB) (Modified: Apr 13 2012 09:42:23 PM)
Jeff Prager and Mike Harris - 26 March 2012.mp3 (7.5 MB) (Modified: Apr 13 2012 09:42:19 PM)
2012-04-09 Dr Judy Wood - Andrew Johnson - Deanna Spingola - America Nuked Document etc.mp3 (15.3 MB) (Modified: Apr 12 2012 04:50:10 PM)
Jesse Ventura Discusses WDTTG Book Seismic Data etc- Alex Jones 10 May 2012.mp3 (365 KB) (Modified: Mar 23 2012 08:28:17 PM)
Richard Gage on 911 Seismic Data - 12 Apr 2011.mp3 (161 KB) (Modified: Mar 23 2012 07:18:24 PM)
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4-12-2011 (Part 2-2).mp3 (2.4 MB) (Modified: Mar 23 2012 07:15:47 PM)
Jim Fetzer - Black Op radio #559-Dec 29, 2011 - 911 - Nukes Turned Buildings to Dust (Hes Still at It).mp3 (278 KB) (Modified: Jan 08 2012 11:19:03 PM)

[iceni tribe]

hi Paul , i suspect the pit bull would be none other than Andrew Johnson.

hi DAkato1955 thanks for your post, i would love to see any new photo's you may have ,and ive just downloaded your pdf to digest more info.
thanks again.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by iceni tribe (here)
hi Paul , i suspect the pit bull would be none other than Andrew Johnson.

Sounds likely. That would be the Andrew Johnson near the top of this page: http://birmingham.truthjuice.co.uk/i...nds-on-181011/