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: Doctor Smith
a reply to: Doctor Smith
See how none of the theories hold up when slightly scrutinized by a modestly educated individual like myself. It's no wonder no peer reviewed papers have been submitted to challenge Steven Jone's peer reviewed paper.
originally posted by: UnderwearBandit
a reply to: gladtobehere
One of the best 9/11 videos on who was behind the attacks.
originally posted by: UnderwearBandit
One of their vans had explosive residue in it
Than later on Israeli tv they admit that they had foreknowledge of the event.
It can't be a coincidence that Jewish Zionists owned the buildings,
ran the security for the buildings,
ran the security at the airports the terrorists departed from and ran the official investigation.
1) Port Authority who authorized the lease to Larry Silverstein (Zionist) was headed by Lewis Eisenberg (Zionist).
In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith
You said paint was inert? You didn't specify red chips. Do you mean compounds in paint. Big difference. And skepticism proved there are other ways to create iron spheres than thermite. So much disinformation from conspiracists, they cannot be trusted. Oh, the irony. Like I said, even Dr Wood debunked thermite. Your own narratives don't hold up with other conspiracists.
Like how the narrative always changes, or you always drop back to they are lying to create your fictional world. And there was no cut beams at the WTC due to pyrotechnics. What does that say about jones research. It's a crock
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: Doctor Smith
See how none of the theories hold up when slightly scrutinized by a modestly educated individual like myself. It's no wonder no peer reviewed papers have been submitted to challenge Steven Jone's peer reviewed paper.
What doesn't hold up when evaluated by a scientist is Jones' paper. Jones is a egomaniacal fraudster. His contrived paper is self-inconsistent and the data he includes disproves his hypothesis.
Peer reviewed means little as Jones' paper review was questionable at best. The samples were tainted, the protocols were incorrect, and Jones and his cohorts had little understanding of the chemistry involved.
No peer reviewed papers challenging Jone's peer reviewed paper so I call BS.
originally posted by: UnderwearBandit
a reply to: gladtobehere
One of the best 9/11 videos on who was behind the attacks. www.youtube.com...