It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
There was no molten metal. Whatever evidence Steven Jones has of molten metal is fabricated. This has already been proven: www.911researchers.com...
Originally posted by zeeon
Thats the most sensible theory I've heard in LONG time! Even I believed (up in the air ... STILL) about the 9/11 oil theory - but jeeze you have a great point. I mean, as tragic as the 9/11 "official story" is, (and if the 9/11 theories prove to be true, then even more tragic still) lets get the damn oil flowing....3 bucks a gallon ! Sheesh ;x
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And why aren't all the papers burning too if a nuclear blast wave did that??
These my responses were sent to you on August 10, 13 days ago. Please post my responses immediately, since you posted your questions publicly, it is correct to publicly post my responses. I am surprised you have not already done so.
www.911eyewitness.com...
Originally posted by Insolubrious
It actually goes in favor of a nuclear blast, or DEW.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by Insolubrious
It actually goes in favor of a nuclear blast, or DEW.
So does it go in favor of a nuke blast, or does it simply leave room for that being an explaination?
You missed my first question.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Steven Jones' response to "911 Eyewitness'" WMD at WTC 23 point nuke hypothesis (read for the actual refutations):
These my responses were sent to you on August 10, 13 days ago. Please post my responses immediately, since you posted your questions publicly, it is correct to publicly post my responses. I am surprised you have not already done so.
www.911eyewitness.com...
Jones does a slam dunk.
Originally posted by Insolubrious
About the localized burning? Maybe it got hit by the superheated debris and the other vehicle didn't.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by Insolubrious
About the localized burning? Maybe it got hit by the superheated debris and the other vehicle didn't.
So then why are we to assume that it was a nuke that superheated the debris?
I thought the fact the cars are burning completely was the idea behind the nuke blast?
Originally posted by Insolubrious
Cars burning may of been hot debris.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by Insolubrious
Cars burning may of been hot debris.
So then caused by what?
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That's a tad off for how the twin towers fell.