Your kidding right? Those links you posted have been discredited a while ago. The one that does the best job of pretending to seriously challenge the arguments of the most credible individuals is The Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. The
article I just read chooses Dr. David Griffin, a theologian as its target instead of addressing the scientific research done by many professors, scientists, and engineers. But even in attacking Dr. Griffin they fail to make any breaches in his arguments, while trying to use mere opinions given by NIST as somehow supporting their arguments. I would like to see any independent researcher with as good a background as any one of the members of
AE911Truth, as well as engage the evidence and not make -pseudo-arguments with no empirical support.
Bookmarks