Mark Roberts, the paper still stands.
You are mistaken. No one, including you, has shown the radar crash time of AA Flt 11 to be in error, which occurred ~10 seconds after the NIST seismic time (the other event), and to say the Hlava video overturned this radar crash time is absurd (Hlava is based in fraud and also lost in obscurity).
This is my last word to you on this...and also that 9/11 WAS an inside job.
No, your *cough* paper does not stand at all. It was annihilated more than a year ago and you ran away from this thread because you could not defend your assertions.
You still cannot defend your paper, as is apparent by your most recent hit and run post above. It is not sufficient to say "na na na na boo boo" and run away again, in the face of legitimate and detailed refutations that you have not even attempted to address, Craig.
Interestingly, even after more than a year, quicknthedead chose not to address this thread about his *cough* paper after it was annihilated, but instead posted on an unrelated thread and made reference to it.
From the other, unrelated thread where quickndead reared his head tonight (some of the following might be slightly modified in order to more appropriately fit this thread):
I did not "flee" that thread.
Oh, yes, you did. More than a year ago, right after your *cough* paper was shown to be utterly wrong. You ran away with your fingers in your ears and your tail between your legs.
Your *cough* "paper" was exposed here as wholly unfounded and nonsensical because you made fundamental errors in your *cough* "analysis" that led you astray, and caused you to come to a conclusion that is completely and utterly unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality.
Perhaps you should stick to quoting the bible passages that you are so fond of. Apparently, there are a whole lot more people who buy into bible nonsense than there are people who buy into 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.
Your *cough* paper was and remains unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality. Stop pretending otherwise. You fled this thread, which was devoted to the subject of your paper more than a year ago and now you've returned to post about it in an unrelated thread, only to flee once again with a hit and run, silly, unsupported post. Who do you think you're kidding? Hell, even most of your tinhat colleagues have long since realized that your *cough* paper was complete and utter nonsense, thanks to the work of rational people here.
So, what on earth makes you think that rational people will be convinced by your nonsense?
[The following was not part of the prior, unrelated thread]
And here you are again, after running away more than a year ago without being able to defend your *cough* paper, now saying, in essence, "I am right, you are wrong, but I am not going to provide any facts or evidence, I am not going to address the legitimate points that have been raised here, I am just going to wallow in my own ignorance and I am not going to post here any more." Yeah, that's a terrific way to defend your *cough* paper, ignore facts, evidence and reality, and address legitimate criticism, Craig.
88.
