As a peer, I cannot force you to review anything I've stated here on the open forum, but it all remains available should you or anyone else ever care to.
You are still free to make some case against demolitions, but just calling that hypothesis wild and then ignoring it is extremely weak. If you can't tell us how or why you find it unreasonable, why do you keep calling it wild?
Weak?Dude the only thing you've posted from strength is your own ego.
Yes, extremely weak.
My ego recoiled at the very thought of starting this thread. I did it anyway. My ego is cowardly, lame and completely self-serving. What's yours like?
Are you sure that was me? I've pointed out many examples of faults, omissions and problems with NIST's findings as identified by many different researchers who tested it for reasonableness, completeness, integrity of methodology, investigative procedures, calculations, assumptions, unsupported claims, etc. It failed many tests and there remain many unresolved items still waiting to be explained.
No clue what you're actually going on about here. Rest assured, I've looked at more from both 'sides' of this than you. There is nothing on this topic I have guarded myself from seeing or considering.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
You are free to give me less material to work with. Remember, we do this interactively or we don't do it.
