they need to organize and do some more research huh?, create a panel, group or commissionYou really belivive they are good enough to create an accurate model?
I don't think there was enough information to make a truly accurate model.
In addition, there were models with and without the perceived structural damage taken into account.
That YouTube says it is showing the non-impact damage model, so one would expect it to look different from the actual building that had impact damage.
Blah...blah...blah....
I'm honestly insulted. you.
TMany....but the others were even more unrealistic...hat was one model of how many?
Twoofers will eventually tire of this crap and take up cryptozoology.
Still a great video
I wonder what Alex Jones has to say?
I wonder if someone will actually publish something about 9-11 and submit it for peer review.
...you mean like the NIST WTC7 report and the 9/11 Commission report?
Hmm. Can you refresh my memory:
What scientific claims did the 9-11 commission report make?
your right, as far as I can tell the 9/11 commission report would have failed any scientific method...yet you buy it...
It's not a scientific paper.
....shouldn't the facts used as bases for its claims stand up to research anyway?
What specifically are you talking about?
...should or should not the 9/11 Commission report stand up to fact-check?
What specifically are you talking about?
see post 2072
See post 2071.
....if your gonna use a report, scientific or not, as a basis for a theory you support then shouldn't that report stand up to review? Answer the question....
Answer the question.
I guess not..
I guess you have no specific problem with the 9/11 commission report.
and I guess its alright to pick and choose what to believe then...
What do you believe really happened before and on 9/11, dan?
....so you support a theory, but only if you can pick and choose what facts to believe...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
