Yes, there is a sucker born every minute, and some of those suckers require more than 16 years to discover they've been deceived.
I'll call your bluff here Mike---please show me where AE911Truth rejects the nuclear theory with sound silence. Back up your claim where Gage or anybody else with the organization 'rejects it with sound science'.
With your fascination and 16 year defense of the official story, you wouldn't know sound science if it sat down next to you with a name tag on. You're bluffing Mike, not for the first time. Show me where Gage has rejected the nuclear theory.
Oh T, I feel sorry for you.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...ernment-reports-9-11-a-19.html#post1067402434
Post 190
Can you sense the evidence here T72, or are you saying AE911T are not telling the truth?
"In Sections I and II of this FAQ, we discuss two independent reasons why we regard the probability that any nuclear blasts occurred at the WTC as close to zero. We also address arguments that have been brought forward with respect to these two reasons."
AE911Truth ? Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - AE911Truth answers claims that nuclear blasts occurred at the World Trade Center
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2015/Aug_2015/FAQ-15b.pdf
"No evidence exists that the WTC destruction and its aftermath resulted in elevated radiation levels consistent with nuclear blasts"
"The claim that the concentrations of uranium, thorium, and lithium in the USGS WTC dust samples show “correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion”44 is based on the assertion that thorium-232 is produced in nuclear blasts by neutroninduced alpha decay of uranium-235, and that lithium is produced by beta decay of the alpha particles generated in the first reaction.45 Neutron-induced binary fission as it occurs in nuclear blasts, however, splits the parent nucleus into nuclei that have a mass ratio of roughly 2:3 — but certainly not a mass ratio of 1:58. Tahil even uses a diagram in Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre . . . that contradicts the alleged existence of a “favoured fission pathway” from uranium235 to thorium-232,46 but he makes the incorrect claim nevertheless. Tahil ignores in his equation “EQ 10” (see footnote 45) the fact that uranium-236 has to be generated before alpha decay of uranium to thorium-232 can occur. Alpha decay of uranium to thorium cannot be indicative of nuclear blasts; alpha decay is a natural process that releases energy only at a low rate (uranium-236 and uranium-235 have half-lives of more than 23 million years and more than 700 million years, respectively). The suggested beta decay of an alpha particle into lithium is simply impossible: Alpha particles are helium-4 nuclei. Helium-4 is stable and cannot decay.47
In addition, it is not reasonable to expect that any general mass correlation constituting the “signature of a nuclear explosion” can exist between the unreacted potential fuel (such as uranium-235) and the fission products.48 The “elevated” levels of many trace elements in the WTC dust samples (like those of thorium and uranium) simply mirror the fact that building materials like concrete or mineral wool are made from mineral-rich phases that contain such “elevated” levels of trace elements naturally.49 "
"
● Internal contradictions in the arguments
Some authors (including Prager, Ed Ward, and Donald Fox) combine the claim that the USGS data prove fission products in the WTC dust with the assertion that the WTC towers were destroyed by “mini- or micro-nukes.”63 They ignore the fact that fission does not create mass. On the contrary, its energy release entails a small “mass defect.” Thus, several small-sized and/or lowyielding “mini-/micro-nukes” cannot account for tons, and especially hundreds of tons, of fission products.
An internal contradiction also arises when authors claim on the one hand that the USGS data prove that tons of fission products were in the WTC dust (including strontium-90, half-life 28.79 years) but assert on the other hand that special nuclear weapons were deployed at the WTC that left no long-lasting and/or easy-to-detect radioactivity. "
and the points go on. You assign no meaning whatsoever to the information from AE911T when it does not fit your view. One should use caution when stating someone has a "cognitive dissonance " issue. Especially when ones posts demonstrates cognitive dissonance symptoms you are attaching to others.
So are you now challenging that AE911T does not use sound science in the statements they issue.
NOW T, SHOW US THE SOUND SCIENCE BEHIND PRAGERS MINI NEUTRON BOMB EXPLANATION. I AM CALLING YOUR BLUFF.
The fixation is on your part. You believe in a CD caused by nukes which did not happen.
eace
Elliott Abrams