MrMusic,

I think that you might be slightly misstaken.

Why has there NEVER been a truely peer reviewed paper, anywhere in the WORLD proving the NIST wrong.

If you have one, please provide it. I will accept ANY language, except Klingon.

Firefighter and EMT accounts of multiple explosions
http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html

Actually, I was one of those firefighters.

You see, quotemining and cherry-picking won't work. Sorry.

Ah, yes, I am an active member at JREF. I also post on Icke forums too. But, its more like poking fun at them.


See above post.

NIST Computer Simulation VS Reality

So, Jeff Madsen is a lizard guy, yes or no?

So why is the actual collapse compared to the simulation version that was run with "no impact damage" when the actual collapse was of a building with significant impact damage?

You know they had a simulation that was done with the correct (or as close as they could get to reality) impact damage, right? Where is that comparison?

all debunkers must watch this before stating how accurate their theory is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnXeUIaYj3k

1000th. You want to keep discussing this, here you go:
***Unofficial Conspiracy Chatter Thread***