Reply #5: researchers [View All]

[OudeVanDagen]

I have no objection to research.

I do object to endless unsubstantiated claims that evidence was willfully destroyed. I do object to the unfounded claims that the investigation did not follow established protocols. I do object to the bizarre notion that the investigation is over. I do object to the suggestion that honest hardworking investigators and thousands of support people all looked the other way.

I do not support the 'official' theory - as it has been defined here. I also do not support CTs.

What I have done is offered numerous other collapse incidents so that readers can investigate them and apply that knowledge to the WTC events and come up with their OWN understanding.

I have also offered technical terms, and suggested using the Modulus Of Elasticity For World Trade Center Steel so that readers can understand the yield and shear points of the steel they talk about and come up with their OWN understanding.

I have also offered details of the collapse sequence as it happened. I have defined each event in that sequence.

I have never suggested the public should accept what it's been told. I have suggested that information is 'just a click away' and must be considered if a quest for an understanding of WTC is genuine.

Is offering an old, dusty, musty, rusty, out-of-touch, inflammatory but 'way cool' CT website topic really "research" - especially when there are scores of other independent research and investigation reports to choose from? I think not.