<<<I can cannot find anything but the usual suspects of pseudoscience, syllogism, ignorance and gullibility out there promoting the bomb theory.>>>
What you describe applies to the melted steel theory, only more so. The "expert" opinions are not based on the study of the physical evidence. There's a good reason for that. The majority of the physical evidence was destroyed before the experts had a chance to examine it.
My expertise in metallurgy is limited to shop classes in high school and various projects around the garage, but even at that level it's possible to observe tell tale signs of how heat affects metal. Perhaps my faith in experts is misplaced, but I would tend to think someone who knows what they're doing might have run all kinds of tests on the physical evidence to pinpoint exactly what happened. A few odds and ends were saved, but if you've read the FEMA report, you will note that NO metallurgy tests were run on those samples. Pseudoscience indeed.
While on the topic of pseudoscience, isn't it scientific principal to examine all possible explanations, then use a process of elimination to exclude the least likely? Why is it that the possibility of controlled demolitions is not mentioned in ANY of the official studies, even to exclude it as a probable cause? To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single demolitions expert included in any of the official investigations, when by all rights there should be half a dozen at least.
So, tell us which is a better example of "ignorance and gullibility", accepting an obviously flawed study at face value, or attempting to examine the obvious omissions from the straight party line?
Attempting to prove one theory to the exclusion of all others is politics, not science. |
