Mr e > But I don't know of anyone - that is, anyone operating under the auspices of doing serious research or making an honest effort to ascertain facts - believes that using editorials, blogs, and similar items of questionable accuracy/content and origin passes as 'credible.'
Sorry about the LPS5. Slip of the lip.
Apropos what you say above, one can only use what there is. There is no series of cases from which one can derive statistical "proofs" concerning 9-11. Indeed, to my knowledge, whatever statistics exist show that steel skyscrapers don't fall down when on fire and, definitely, not in the manner of the WTC. But, of course, improbable doesn't make impossible and therefore statistics wouldn't have been of much use anyway.
Apropos blogs, editorials, personal websites etc, even though they may be subjective, and therefore lacking in rigorous scientific accuracy, they nevertheless express the opinions of a body of people who, like us, have given considerable thought to the subject.
As I see it, the basis of the polemic between you and most of the rest of us is that you persist in looking for an objective evaluation when all we can offer is a subjective one. But that doesn't mean we are wrong, and therefore worthy of contempt, it only means that, as far as you are concerned, we have jumped to a conclusion which you don't accept.
We, as you do, have a right to our opinion. Indeed, that is what this is all about -- the right we both have to express our opinion, even though we may disagree with each other. |
