From the October 29, 2012 article, “Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle by Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken and Dr. Ed Ward (with Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer),” the authors raise some very important evidence and questions concerning what brought down the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001.
However, why the inflammatory, unscientific rhetoric, such as (emphasis mine):
“Steve Jones true audience may be the good people in the military establishment who would freak out at the use of tactical nuclear weapons on civilians. He’s probably not trying to convince the average Joe Blow on the street that thermite destroyed these giant skyscrapers. He’s merely trying to keep a lid on the use of nukes. This is classic CYA; he’s covering the assess of his buddies at the nuke labs. Nobody wants to get their government funding cut. Or worse yet go to jail.“
“So the Judy Wood bottom line is: no nukes on 9/11, no new investigation is needed and follow John Hutchison’s BS on YouTube or whatever. Don’t look at what’s going on at Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore or Oak Ridge. This is a recipe for going nowhere. She is a gatekeeper and nothing more. The efforts of her crew are coordinated so it appears Judy Wood is an intelligence operative.“
“Being stuck on seeing an (possibly) airy-fairy version of the EMF effects does not make one a deliberate disinfo person. In fact, one can see her emphasize things you people would only have majorly noticed — probably — such as the ongoing dustification IN MID-AIR of spires, with no heat-melt effects or flashes, if she had not pointed them out.
In doing so, she’s been emphasizing her stuff so long that though she’s always HAD room for nuclear EFFECTS, the regular bomb nuke idea, which was around when she started, DESERVED ridicule, and she’s GOTTEN STUCK IN DEFENSIVENESS. ——- Who hasn’t run into THAT elsewhere? HA HA ha.“
“Clare wants to think Dr. Wood is ignorant. She is not. Contact her. Ask to discuss my 22 pages titled, “19-42″ which I’ve linked in these emails repeatedly. She will not. Dr. Jones won’t either. One cannot, as a scientist, publicly make an ass of oneself and a public debate on those pages with me, or anyone else with a full understanding of the material in them, would crucify either of them and they know it.“
“Dr. Jones’ samples were acquired, handled and used in such a way that anyone, including Dr. Jones himself, could have tampered with those samples and as I’ve stated previously, no true scientist in his right mind would use them, yet Jones did.“
What is the agenda of the seven authors of this article with such statements?
[…] these posts weren’t questionable enough, there is the October 29, 2012 Veterans Today article by Don Fox, along with Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager and four others. Veterans Today is the publication […]
[…] In summary, I pointed out that Prager was one of the seven authors of the highly suspect October 29, 2012 Veterans Today article, Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle, as discussed in my article, Why the inflammatory unscientific rhetoric in this 9/11 Truth article? […]
[…] 8) Why the inflammatory, unscientific rhetoric in this 9/11 Truth article? […]
I am old enough to remember (and quote) Nikita Krushchov who, upon learning of the experiments in the USA with the Neutron bomb theories, said in a major speech, “Only aggressors, dreaming of plunder could marshal suchextensive resources to such criminal ends; we will soon give you our answer”
Within weeks the Soviet nuclear group exploded a 55 megaton hydrogen bomb. This was the original “bunker buster” and it cooled the desire of those of the 1%.who dreamed of spending a few weeks in “bomb shelters” for the elite before emerging to a new world rid of the excessive numbers of 99% types where the plunder would make them even more wealthy than before they hatched such a scheme. .
That bomb explosion remains unique in history and is seldom mentioned; Presumably the destructive power exhibited in this test helped to sober all to what games they were really playing?