lol

[ Jeremy doesn't seem to understand that #1 Internet sources don't last forever, and I'm not going to spend every day checking the thousands on the site; I fix broken ones when reported. #2 NIST and Popular mechanics haven't been discredited, unless you're a conspiracy theorist who lets others think for you. Yes, my reply to him was just "lol" because there's no sense in arguing with him. I have a feeling though, he may just reply again with something even funnier, so check back. ]

I'll say it again, lol. Have fun with your delusions.

[ See, he can't stop himself from replying. I'll keep replying to keep up the funny. ]

Hey man, thanks for showing me exactly which sources no longer work instead of just sending me a diatribe about how you think everyone is wrong, except you.

>> But that's not what I stated at all... Since the first email I sent I asked you about your citations...

All you did was repeatedly tell me they're just wrong, what am I supposed to do? I'm not going to argue with someone who's absolutely convinced otherwise. I'd rather waste my time doing anything else.

>> I didn't specifically focus on certain ones because I didn't really think you would respond and it was more a general suggestion...

You suggested that NIST and Popular Mechanics were wrong, which is not even remotely true.

>> I never at any point said you were wrong and I was right...

I guess I read "and you still think you have credibility? You're just as bad as those conspiracy theorists, you debunk their claims with more lies." differently than you do.

>> it just seems as though you try to discredit all these various points, but in some cases your own sources are suspect or not accessible.

The point of the site is to talk about points conspiracy theorists are making, it's not my fault almost all are fantasy. I wrote the article nearly 3 years ago, web citations don't last forever. NIST is only "suspect" according to you.

>> Isn't the whole point of putting this site together to debunk these theories? That doesn't really work when you don't have accurate citations.

Thanks for reminding me what the point of my web site is. Hey, if you want to check thousands of sources across the site everyday to make sure they're still working, you go right ahead. I fix sources when they're reported.

>> Also, I was unable to find any reference to the study done by Steven Jones and others regarding the active thermitic material found in the rumble of the twin towers. This was published relatively recently (in the last year or so) in The Open Chemical Physics Journal and I saw no indication of the when your site was last updated so I wasn't sure if you responded to these new findings

I've been meaning to get that up, in the mean time there's a wiki article for that:

http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/wiki-projects-911/

In short, it's just paint, the chemical traces are for paint, and the "journal" in question isn't a real peer review journal, you pay $800 to get your work published and that's it.

[ USA! USA! USA! ]