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

I hoped you were being sarcastic but having read your post again it seems you are not. Surely you don't believe the war was for the benefit of the average american citizen? cheaper gas for everyone? yeah right!

Just follow the money. Cheney and his cronies have done okay from it and sod everyone else. Oh but sorry..your not supposed to know that. It's spreading democracy as far as you're concerned. Now shoosh and go back to sleep.

Maybe then you would like to consider the fact that they are also **Directional**

GBU-29 Directional Nuclear Drilling bomb ring a bell?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And why aren't all the papers burning too if a nuclear blast wave did that??

It actually goes in favor of a nuclear blast, or DEW.

Intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory.

Much like how a microwave oven cooks your food but bypasses the paper.

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. What was the name of that other thread? Wasn't it "No more messing around" ?

[edit on 30-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

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.

About the localized burning? Maybe it got hit by the superheated debris and the other vehicle didn't.

So who's science are you refering to when you say there is a minimum Kiloton Yeild of 0.1KT to cascade a chain reaction ? What kind of detonation method is it that you refer to ? I would strongly sugest you look into all the "new" techniques of causing chain reactions for nuclear yeilding like lasonic's.

I think its possible that a team of around 4-6 people could carry up enough powder form thermate to the middle levels ( below the plane strike point ) detonate about a tonne of it. Then it flows like in that video to the basement levels melting all the inner core on the way down. Im only guessing how much might be required but its do-able, the result is a possible eventual collapse.

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 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?

Because it could?

No, the paper/powder result was the idea behind the nuke blast as I quoted above. Cars burning may of been hot debris.

A little warning for those with 56k, don't click on the photo IIB linked.....


You know IIB, 56k isn't bliss :0

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Cars burning may of been hot debris.

So then caused by what?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Cars burning may of been hot debris.

So then caused by what?

bombs in the building.

Bingo?

I gotta say, that could be some important evidence right there.

Something hot made it a long way when you look at the WFC parking lots.


[edit on 30-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

That's a tad off for how the twin towers fell.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That's a tad off for how the twin towers fell.

If you're referring to lack of exterior evidence of explosions, that is because the twin towers unique design had support collumn located in the center if the building, that is why all you see are a few poofs.

But yes, that is how they fell.

AAC