Would you rather defend a speculation that has not been properly investigated, as a non expert, or would you rather focus on getting a real investigation underway?

I would like to see more nuclear physicists undertake an investigation.

Do you think the US used nuclear bunker buster bombs in Afghanistan? (In other words, any non-sensational experts looked into it so far?)

No, I am looking for a real conversation between real military weapons experts discussing if mini nukes had ever been used in a combat mission.

And someone besides Khalezov and Wood, please.

Khalezov alone? Weak. I would like to see more than one guy, and especially someone who could point out that US were already using bunker buster mini nukes.

There are Alex Jones quality of conversations. And then there are Kevin Ryan quality of conversations. If information can't reach the tipping point of serious people, and stays in the realm of half baked sensationalists..... I would not even buy a car from people like that. No matter how many Phd's behind the name. If its speculation, and you admit it, fine. But if you make claims of proof when really more study is needed, serious people are going to be turned off. It actually sets the field of study back, poisons it, even if there was some merit to looking into it further.

It doesn't mean you have to be an egg head, but you have to be honest enough to the scientific method that you don't blow your wad of credibility in the first five minutes. Hurricane Erin was not heading for Manhattan for example, not in a million years.

No, I am telling you its not happening, this conversation, by serious people who would know, from the US side. So in the US all you got is speculation among people who are not highly expert in the technical matter, who have no experience in the field. And from Russia, someone who is a loner. Who not only cannot be verified, but whose claims are dubious. It hasn't got any traction among serious people yet. And it gets a lot of attention from people who are already tainted. Not a good sign.

have you read khalezov's book? no. have you watched his video? all of them many months ago.

I am not claiming to be expert enough to know if there is substance or not to what khalezov says. YOU ARE.

I am saying there is no one credible helping me to relate to what I heard from Khalezov. His word alone isn't enough, not for me, not for anyone I know, so far, except for some internet dudes going around here. Like you for example.

edited for adding a period.

By the way, I have worked around a lot of engineers, including at NASA. I was in contract admin. I know a bit of how those guys operate.

Also, I am not saying you are not intelligent. You are obviously bright. What I am saying is that most people who try to get a result (and are expert at it, as in demolishing stuff) use the most conventional means available. What convinced you that conventional means would not show the results we can see in the public domain?

Good points about wtc one and two, but seven looks pretty conventional.

Yet persisting molten material at all three locations implies some common technology.

I never said conventional commercial demolition practices were used. I am sure you are aware the military also has demolitions experts and has access to explosive materials not used in normal demolitions. There are plenty of materials that are very explosive without being nuclear. Or there could have been a combinations of materials. If it was me, I would not have hesitated to load any aircraft or missiles used with additional materials besides fuel if it would have assisted in the demolition.

We did see a lot of steel come down, a lot of steel collected, a lot of steel shipped out. But the dust also has a lot of steel in it.

I agree this is all interesting. But if I found thermite, I think I would give that some weight as well.

If you can find thermitic material in dust, then what nuclear material should you also find in dust if nuclear was used? Or if not, if you had no smoking gun, then would you not keep your speculations close to you chest and focus on the kind of presentation that would most likely have the clout to initiate an investigation without esoteric and controversial debates that would divide the attention and weaken your overall thrust? Especially if all I got is one Russian guy. And especially if I have not one from the US, and no one who is a nuclear weapons designer from the west.

thermite is used for cutting

they found thermitic evidence in the dust, but evidently there may be some nano thermate type of materials that are not commercially available or studied. Also did they test for all other kinds of explosives? But the main thing is that there may be a kind of thermate that can function as a propellant? Have you listened to everything Jonathan Cole has said about it: https://www.google.com/search?q=Cole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=jonathan+cole+9%2F11, or studied his experiments?

Links to Israel are not limited to nuclear. The US (including covert ops, maybe especially covert ops) contracts out a lot of stuff to a lot of people.

John Prager's fission analysis has received any peer review? What are Prager’s Science Qualifications? Retired magazine publisher? I would like to see more comments on his analysis. But that is also what a real investigation is about. You don't conduct a real proof or investigation with a single paper that no one has heard of, or parade a single paper as final absolute proof. That looks more like sensationism than science, or even how courts work.

Jumping to "proof" is implying that a public forum is going to convict the criminals. That's what the criminals did, use shoddy tricks to get agreement and conclusion. That is the last thing we need to be doing or condoning.

Lets do what it takes to get a consensus for a real investigation. Lets not use sensational means to get people to fall for some possibly half baked ideas that have not had a chance to be vetted. The criminals already did that.

Not how the criminal justice system works. Until you build enough consensus and interest, the process remains stuck.

Possibly half baked. Possibly good science. One man's analysis is going to have to be investigated by those expert in the science. But we can't even stay on topic about needing an investigation, and yes, it amounts to sensationalism to claim this is enough to issue an arrest warrant. That's not how it works. Whoever issues the warrant is going to have to consult a handful of experts who are able to be cross examined.

Right now, science is being turned off by presenting stuff as proof that hasn't yet been even considered. More professionals need a chance to look at it. Thats what it took to get thermite even talked about.

Yeah, that will get you the truth /s

How about enhanced critical thinking or enhanced skepticism? Less dumbing down of the population, intentionally, through an indoctrinated education system.

Or maybe enhanced justice, where the courts really do function to be fair. Our supreme court legalized bribery with "citizens united". Jeez. Its almost funny.

The motive and evidence are well documented. The percentage odds of all the pointers just being coincidence is what is humorous. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html

How's it feel to be a "faither"?

We all need to be aware of confirmation bias.

I think its pretty obvious that the Zelikow commission report is fatally flawed.

There is a lot of evidence that the Bush administration is lying and that there are factors that point to something other than Osama, 19 hijackers etc., and also point to explosive demolition. But I keep coming back to the statistical unlikeliness of what we were told: http://www.911review.com/means/

What do you got, besides, faith?

No, it the combinations of tall tales that combined, effectively reduce the probabilities to zero. Its bad enough that one factor is unbelievable, but if you add two unbelievable stories, the odds of that is much worse than the two earlier stories combined in themselves. Got it?

Improbable individuals, improbable boardings, improbably take overs, improbable piloting ability, improbable flight trajectories, improbable flight speeds, improbable identities, improbable passports and other claimed "findings", and on and on and on. Then improbable non response of air defense case one, improbable case two, improbable case three over an hour and a half. Then improbable impact results compared to shown building results and failures and debris patterns. It goes on and on.

By the way, why would it be improbable that the same people who would lie to go to war, who would result in over 15,000 US service deaths and a million innocent civilian deaths, who would waste trillions of the nations wealth for lies and quadruple opium exports, the same faction that used to and probably still imports cocaine, please explain why it would be impossible to think that they might be willing to sacrifice a few of us if thats what it would take to motivate us, out of fear, to get involved in 15 years of middle eastern war?

Speaking of evidence, what is your standard of evidence from those who you believe? Seen any videos? Any proof?

Besides, there is a lot of substantial evidence of the early war planning, even before 9/11, evidence that the hijackers were not who we say they were, etc. Lots.

http://boston911truth.org/2014/09/13/reasons-to-doubt-the-official-story-of-september-11th-2001/

Not all are my favorite reasons, but there are a few good ones listed.

Have you read the 9/11 timeline at history commons? http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=911timeline

Ripley's believe it or not level of odd in many, many places.

Runways are much smaller targets

Much less room to spare, wingtip to wingtip, on WTC one and two, compared to any runway. Fact check yourself.

Hitting 207 feet may not be easy for someone who can't fly a cesna. On the other hand, didn't know the 150 feet width for runways at JFK, thought it was wider. Thanks, and I stand corrected on this.

But since you have some experience in flying, what is the airspeed claimed for the second plane to hit at the WTC site. I have heard this was not a realistic speed to operate a commercial jet at close to sea level. Have you looked into it?

it was going 510 knots, which a 767 is certainly capaable of

at sea level this would be problematic according to commercial airline pilots. to the point of a plane breaking up or more specific regarding your claims of easy to hit a target, uncontrollable.

Saw it on tv is not the way data is presented in a 3000 person murder trial. Serious people get serious and investigate. Serious questions get asked.

I've got a preponderance of evidence that shows 19 foreign men, funded by al Qaeda trained to hijack four airplanes and crash them into buildings, boarded those planes and hijacked them.

No you don't. You have claims from those who also claimed Saddam had WMD, and not any believable evidence.

What has been shown was the 19 could not even fly small propeller planes, and had never even studied flying commercial jets.

I said you don't have any preponderance of evidence, and you don't. Its you who are a faither in a lie from psychopathic liars. Cough it up, or shut up.

I am saying that settling these matters of great importance is not a matter of your opinion or mine, is a matter for non corrupt investigators to present in a real investigation or trial. You want to settle it by public opinion relying on liars?