Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michelino who wrote (5742)	3/20/2004 3:55:47 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 20039

Re: Now you have gone and branded me naive Incorrect. I labeled you as lacking in common sense. There are plenty of well educated, sophisticated and successful people on this planet who can and have made fortunes, pioneered new technologies and been really swell human beings while lacking common sense. I've never from the first of our correspondence considered you to be naive. Though now that you mention it..... . . . . . . You'd have to be completely naive to think you'll make any headway whatsoever with a silly red herring like that goofy Snopes story you cited. Every time that I have approached Barbara Mikkelson at Snopes with verifiable stories about the criminal nature of George Bush she has not rebuked or countered me. No, she's ignored me. That tells you something about the usefulness of her vanity website, does it not? Or do you lack the common sense to smell propaganda when the odor arises?

To: Michelino who wrote (5742)	3/20/2004 12:46:42 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

<<<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.