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.
If I acquired dust samples and analyzed them, I wouldn't know where to publish the
results.
Top Expert come forth:9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives
Originally posted by pteridine
I agree that facts are not important to you. You do not recognize the errors of the Jones
paper even when I explain them. Please go to all your favorite websites and ask the
questions about DSC in air and imbalances in energy output. I suspect that the people who
frequent such sites are no more competent than the Jones team and might not realize how bad
the Bentham paper is, but maybe someone will suggest that they have moved on and that Jones thermite paint is passe.
[color=gold]I have many publications in peer reviewed chemistry and technology journals
and regularly review papers for Analytical Chemistry and Catalysis.
That is why when I read Jones' paper, I had to tell the non-technical readers of ATS why it didn't prove
what it is claimed to have proved. If it had proved the claims, I would have so stated.
Jones and other such will not be able to buffalo ATS readers based on their reputations in
the CT communities.
Without turning this into a personal attack , suffice it to say , that I can point out several of your requirements that you have failed to meet , time after time .
And , not all of us are kids , as I am a retiree with grandkids .
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by hooper
but really there are no monsters of that degree serving in government.
Are you really that stupid?
That is the most hilariously naive and insanely idiotic things I have ever read.
You are either an uninformed child or a seriously delusional moron.
9/11 would require a lot of monsters though, wouldn't it?
Show my false statement to bonez. I have made no false statements.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme
A proper analysis would require dust with a chain of custody that was found at the site and certified to be from the WTC, only.
This may be difficult to get at any time as contamination levels from other sources would be unknown.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
No-plane theories are not acceptable anywhere in the truth movement.
So, you're just wasting both of our time. Moving on....
Originally posted by Jezus
That is an assumptions based on personal speculation.
It is more important to focus on the fact that the official story is filled with anomalies and contradictions.
It is not necessary to have an alternate theory to understand that the official story is not possible.
The fact remains that the official story is not physically possible.
Originally posted by Jezus
While it might be interesting to speculate on these ideas it is ultimately unnecessary to have a specific theory to prove that a conspiracy took place.
The fact remains that the official story is not physically possible.
The fact remains that information has been manipulated.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
to supplant the traditional view of 9/11 in the minds of the public at large you're going to need an alternative hypothesis.
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Solomons
The controlled demolition of 3 WTC buildings on 9/11 has NOT been proven well beyond any reasonable doubt and is ONLY accepted as the most plausible and possible theory of 9/11 amongst truthers .
Otherwise , there would have been a new investigation already .