LashL,
I do get flippant sometimes. It's just me.
This whole facade here is baffeling.
Here is the real fact of the whole situation and it will be so forever.
NOBODY was able to "apply proper research parameters" to any of those buildings. Period, And they never will be able to do so.
1) The scene was not preserved.
2) The physical evidence that was left was not considered in light of all possibilities.
3) The material was not tested for explosives when fresh.
All we have is reems of paper and theory that have been, or are significantly delayed, delivered to you by an administration that was resistant to an investigation in the first place. That is all we will ever have.
Quoting papers as you do generated under these circumstances does not even come close to scientific methodology.
Eyewitness accounts are muddled by time, motive and emotion.
So just drop the pretense and the psuedo-science.
You are asking us Cters for something you yourself don't have and never will. Wake up.
You are believers in a non conspiracy cherry picking just as much as a CTer. But you have the title of skeptic. That is it - two beliefs with different titles and diametrically opposed conclusions.
Now all anybody has is circumstantial evidence.
Quit fooling yourselves. Quit insulting others in the process.
Stop and wonder what if you are wrong - what then?
Russell
Last edited:
