OK then. Just the facts. 9-11

[cbrer]

7. Indubitably (sp?)

However, I have been looking at this research for a while now. Please list what makes your information valid. I don't claim to have final answers. I also do not believe something just because someone puts PHD behind their name. This skepticism works both ways. The true intent of this thread is as stated.

Conflicting data as in conclusions on opposite ends of the spectrum from seemingly "legitimate" research from the same evidence. These people are not idiots. However they could easily be working an agenda. But again, as far as I'm concerned, BOTH sides are in that boat.

I appreciate your information, with sources. I am not prepared to "automatically" believe anything. If something makes sense to me, with my limited scientific knowledge, it becomes plausible. I do not have the background to wade through the equations used. I give not 2 shits about who was involved, or any of the political intrigue behind the events.

Also, it's very easy to be labeled a crackpot, and have your views shit canned. If you read some of the information at the link I provided, you will have a clearer understanding of where I'm coming from. All sides of this issue should be prepared to defend their conclusions. And have their theories shot down if shown to be defective. Period.

Doesn't the science behind those events (any events) put wrong theories to rest?