Agree with both of these:
"What's quite clear is that CIT's entire approach is to compare the independent verifiable evidence (eyewitnesses) with the official reports and data to see if they match up. They don't, which is the entire point."
"while the CIT researchers generally have good, honest intentions, it seems that CIT's approach is not without problems - particularly the way they hastily adopted the pet theory of the flyover at the exclusion of all other possibilities, and the unreasonable and ridiculous position they are taking in which they insist that the flyover theory is as solid and provable, er even more so, than the WTC CD theory, along with the off-putting way that they try to shove this down everyone's throats."
When was the last time anyone talked about pyroclastic flows? QED.
WTCD User Comments
9 years 23 weeks ago
9 years 36 weeks ago
10 years 3 days ago
10 years 24 weeks ago
10 years 24 weeks ago
10 years 26 weeks ago
10 years 33 weeks ago
10 years 33 weeks ago
10 years 33 weeks ago
10 years 34 weeks ago