Comments - Judy Wood devotee attempts to undermine article on the use of mini-neutron bombs to take out the Twin Towers - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-28T09:26:44Zhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=3488444%3ABlogPost%3A53334&xn_auth=noUnder replies by Jeff Prager:…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2012-10-31:3488444:Comment:530462012-10-31T18:34:13.750ZDanny Whitehttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DannyWhite
<p>Under replies by Jeff Prager: Khalezov #4 .... Mr Prager states; "Actually, underground nuclear devices do, in fact, cause a top down demolition of large towers and building structures.This is common knowledge among people involved in the nuclear field, and has to do with "crush" and "damage" zones, terms used in the field of nuclear demolition. However, I do not believe this was an underground demolition." I feel like this is a very important piece of the puzzle. Can anyone explain why Mr…</p>
<p>Under replies by Jeff Prager: Khalezov #4 .... Mr Prager states; "Actually, underground nuclear devices do, in fact, cause a top down demolition of large towers and building structures.This is common knowledge among people involved in the nuclear field, and has to do with "crush" and "damage" zones, terms used in the field of nuclear demolition. However, I do not believe this was an underground demolition." I feel like this is a very important piece of the puzzle. Can anyone explain why Mr Prager doesn't support the underground nuke idea. I can see how the top down thing might work, but I can't see how most of the sub-basement steel disappeared leaving huge craters ... without using an underground nuke. Mr Prager might have explained his position at the Vancouver hearings. He seems to be very knowledgeable in the field of nuclear demolition, a very specialized area of expertise. I'll try to find the transcript of his Vancouver testimony and any recent interviews.</p> There were no loud explosions…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2012-10-30:3488444:Comment:531092012-10-30T17:36:44.524ZThoth IIhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ThothII
<p>There were no loud explosions as the towers turned to dust.<br></br><br></br></p>
<p>But I've claimed many times, and still believe that is because they were ENGINEERED that way. In other words, in any energy exchange like a bomb, some energy goes into the shock wave, some into light, etc., and the architects of the twin towers destruction had such a big job to do they couldn't waste energy. Therefore, almost all the energy budget went into pulverization of concrete and vaporization of…</p>
<p>There were no loud explosions as the towers turned to dust.<br/><br/></p>
<p>But I've claimed many times, and still believe that is because they were ENGINEERED that way. In other words, in any energy exchange like a bomb, some energy goes into the shock wave, some into light, etc., and the architects of the twin towers destruction had such a big job to do they couldn't waste energy. Therefore, almost all the energy budget went into pulverization of concrete and vaporization of steel.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And the paper would be quickly accelerated out of GZ and because of it's light weight nuclei wouldn't absorb as much of the gamma rays as did the concrete/steel.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>These are just feable debunking attempts with the agenda at making DEWs more plausible; these are not sincere attempts to evaluate all the H's on a fair footing.</p>