9/11 Commission: Redefining the Scientific Method

[JackRiddler]

On another thread, someone said the 9/11 Commission followed the scientific method.

I didn't realize the report was that historic, since it has obviously redefined science and indeed epistemology.

See, science is when you ask the government, can I interview the imprisoned masterminds of 9/11, who are being "held" at an "undisclosed location"? And the government says no. And then you say, okay, let me just use whatever transcripts/summaries/notes you, the government, provide, as though it's gospel. And then you base a large part of your report on the alleged testimony, as reported to you by the government, of the alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, who may or may not be dead, who may or may not be in US custody, who may or may not be telling the truth, and whom the government has now said spoke while under torture (waterboarding).

Transcribe government's notes and call it a report. That's science. Got it.

Science is when you don't even bother to pose questions that self-evidently matter (the US does not know how the attacks were financed and "the question is of little practical significance," 9/11 CR, p. 172).

Science is when you refer to documents kept secret that will not be released for at least 6 years, and which we are to accept on faith - well, we say so, so it is so. That's how peer review works, see? You ask to confirm what the scientist says, he can answer: "sorry, it's classified!"

Science is when you simply ignore all data that does not fit your preconceived theory: you can leave out the collapse of WTC 7, the wargames except to reproduce a self-evidently false denial by Eberhart, insider trading such as puts against the WTC tenants and reinsurers, reports of insider trading internationally, suspicious ties of the Florida flight schools, Atta in the US long before official FBI timeline acknowledges his presence, Able Danger spotting the alleged hijackers as related to the Commission many weeks before the publication, etc. etc.

Also, very important, science is when you determine from the beginning that you will not assign blame, but write a cool novelistic narrative. That is your task, to make a readable text.

You will not label what you are excluding; you will in fact simply adapt the text so that there is no need of visible redactions, because you didn't bother to let in anything that the White House or CIA would demand to censor.

That's science. Excuse me when I confuse all this with papal pronouncements.

[hack89]

1. You are right..

it was not science. This is science - http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

[JackRiddler]

2. what does this have to do with anything in the OP?

NOTHING. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.

[hack89]

4. I was merely directing him to some real science that supports

the official story. It is disingenuous to claim that the 911 commission report is poor science when nobody ever claimed it was. It is an investigation involving the compilation of lots of information. No way does it remotely resemble science.

[JackRiddler]

6. As a matter of fact...

An ally of yours among the local adherents to the Official Conspiracy Theory, one "Caution," does so here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69816&mesg_id=69838

To wit, "But the fact is that all scientific progress is made as a result of the use of the scientific method, where reputable scientists and researchers come to a consensus based upon evidence. And all of this is done through a very rigorous process that requires consensus within the wider community. The 9/11 Commission Report follows this method..."

It's to this that my mock response was originally addressed - with comments that do not just laugh off the absurdity of confusing a government report with "science." If you cared to read nuance at a fifth grade level or higher, you could see that the question of "science" is but the jumping off point for a sarcastically tinged argument that the 9/11 CR is a simple and transparent fraud, no matter what discipline we assign it to.

Now you want to latch on to a given word and miss the sense, as usual.

You're a busy one, Hack89. Around the clock, soon as anyone posts a comment critical of the Official Conspiracy Theory, no matter what they say, no matter what the argument, you are usually the first to respond - and always in the same mode. Dismissive, sneering, un-factual, insulting, and most definitely irrelevant.

As in this case, in which you ignore the OP and post a (dead) link to a study that does not address anything in the OP.

Doing your best to derail and distract from the point. Sort of like a contract operative assigned to repeat pre-set talking points, regardless of the specific topic.

Since I'm assuming you're not a contracter who has been hired to do this, I must conclude you are a sad case. Because the only other possibility is that you are so neurotically attached to being right and to striking a blow for what you take to be your team, your side in an argument, that you spend the whole day waiting to do pounce, and actually derive pleasure from polluting every thread with irrelevant points designed to prevent reasonable argument.

Imagine someone was waiting for you to post, and then soon as you did, no matter what you said, always was the first to respond with the comment, "The Seahawks suck!" Which they most certainly do, but how is that relevant?

It's time to grow up and adopt some manners, young man.

[hack89]

8. Actually I am a contractor..

and if you pay close attention you will see that I usually post in the evening after I get home from work.

You are so pompous and full of yourself - spinning up guys like you is one the great pleasures I get from this place. Did Pavlov have a dog named jackriddler?

[JackRiddler]

11. Seahawks suck n/t

[hack89]

12. You will not get an argument from me! And I owe you an apology

I should have read your post more closely. I'm sorry for high jacking it.

[dchill]

9. If I may...

I'd like to sign on to this reply. I'm sure it can all be scientifically proven by scientists from M.I.T.

;)

[dchill]

7. So now science is...

"A collection of essays" written by scientists? Not. All of the reports I've seen are nothing but theories based on opinions. Some of these opinions I share, some I don't - all based on my own perceptions of what happened in 2001. I admit that.

The chance for true science left on the boats that carried the evidence away. I can only believe that this fact was foremost on the minds of the "officials" who caused this to happen.

[hack89]

10. A simple challenge..

can you present a single paper supporting demolition or some other 911 CT that remotely resembles these papers in terms of basic engineering and scientific principles? That contain calculations and reference? Where is the science supporting the 911 CTs?

Are you anti-science because there is none to support your case?

[dchill]

13. I truly don't understand how...

you arrive at the unsustainable conclusion that I am anti-science. I do not feel compelled in any way to accept your challenge - your "scientific" references and their reliance on calculations based on unsubstantiated data are truly superfluous to the intelligent discussion of the truth about the forces behind the leveling of the buildings in the World Trade Center and related events at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

ALL THE DATA AND DOCUMENTATION on 9/11 that is available on the internet - whether pro or con regarding "CT" - is suspect and subject to legitimate question. You say "Science is science" - I say "Phrenology is phrenology."

How do you prove a calculation? You don't. You just change the variables until it gives you the solution you've wanted from the beginning.

[hack89]

14. You're right..

my statement is too strong. My frustration is that the CT community says things like "it is impossible for fire to make a steel frame building collapse" yet they never take the time to prove it - it is simply accepted as a matter of faith. Yet the scientific and engineering principles that underly building design and fire investigation are well known - science knows pretty well how building react in fires and how large and hot fire get. So why is it that no 911 researcher has built a case on fundamental principles to show the WTC collapse could be nothing else but demolition?

Be honest - when it is all said and done, the "scientific case" for demolition is founded on nothing more than the amateur analysis of internet video - there is nothing more. It looked like demolition so it had to be demolition.

So on one hand I read the papers from respected professionals at MIT and on the other I have what? Your "feelings" about what happened with no proof. Can you at least understand why I might be skeptical?

You prove a calculation when a majority of your peers says that your theory is consistent with know scientific and engineering principles and matches observed behavior. Peer review is the foundation of science and the basis of a scientist's reputation - no scientist is going to casually put poor science on public display when such work is a direct reflection of his talent. This work has been available for 3 years - why hasn't it been rebutted, rebutted that is by a engineer and not a non-technically educated layman like yourself? Do you honestly believe you are capable of critiquing the work of a MIT professor? How is that different from a christian fundie looking an esteemed biologist in the eye and saying "Evolution is a lie - you are simply trying to destroy God in America?" Yours is a faith based belief and I don't accept it.

[dchill]

20. Thanks, I knew I was right.

Quoting your post:

"So on one hand I read the papers from respected professionals at MIT and on the other I have what? Your 'feelings' about what happened with no proof. Can you at least understand why I might be skeptical?"

So... all you have is the papers from MIT and MY "FEELINGS" ? That's it? I don't think that's enough data on which to base any kind of scientific conclusion. There are all kinds of "paper" and all kind of "feelings".

You are not defending hard science. You are defending your narrow point of view - and frankly, it's more than a little transparent. Especially to those of us who followed your link to the MIT "hard science."

Also, when responding to a post, why don't you try responding to the post?

[hack89]

21. It is much more than the MIT papers ..

it is the NIST studies, the public comments to the NIST studies, the ARUP studies - it doesn't take a lot of effort to see that the papers I linked to represent the mainstream of engineering and scientific thought on 911. There is no serious science behind any CT, there are no engineering or scientific organizations supporting any CT - there is nothing. Even on this board there is no one with a engineering background supporting any CT.
Unlike you, this is not a faith based issue with me - I just see a lot of emotion and not much more.

[petgoat]

15. "paper supporting demolition"

hack, your lack of familiarity with Jim Hoffman's work is really
messing you up.

Here's his paper: "The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion
of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center"

http://wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

This paper "ENERGETIC EXAMINATION OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE NORTH TOWER OF THE WTC" calculates the
energy requirements to break up the steel structure.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/energia3.htm

[petgoat]

18. paper supporting demolition

I take it you are unfamiliar with the FEMA Appendix C report, which
was written by a PhD fire engineer, a PhD materials scientist, and a
PhD metallurgist.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm



Its findings are digested here:

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

"The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel"

[hack89]

24. Acid rain is proof of demolition?

I am confused.

[petgoat]

25. "I am confused."

You certainly are.

Maybe you should just think about it for a while. Understand the position these
scientists were in. They're talking around the issue. The "evaporation" of the
steel is a great mystery. Note they assume the erosion was sulfidative, and
don't mention the obvious hypothesis that the erosion was oxidative.

[hack89]

26. But he gives a possible reason - acid rain

and as we have discussed before - there were plenty of sources of sulfur.

Why don't you quit beating around the bush and explain exactly why this is evidence of demolition. What do you mean by oxidative?

[petgoat]

31. "there were plenty of sources of sulfur."

Then why is a PhD fire engineer mystefied about it? If carpets, drywall,
acid rain--all the supposed sources of sulfur--commonly caused sulfidative
evaporation of steel, how come it never happened before?

'What do you mean by oxidative?'

Steel is commonly destroyed by oxidation--combining with oxygen to make rust.
Hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are also destroyed by oxidation--combining with
oxygen to make carbon dioxide and water.

Because of the chemical similarity of oxygen to sulfur, the sulfidative reactions
are analogous to the oxidative.

The three PhDs are mystefied as to the source of the sulfur. They don't want to
talk about the possibility that the erosion was oxidative, because where would you
get a whole lot of oxygen in a fire?

Look at the second half of Eric Huffschmid's "Painful Questions" in which he discusses
explosive chemicals. It's all a question of delivering the oxygen in a small molecular
package. Hence the prevalence of the nitrate (N03) component in many primitive
explosive mixtures such as gunpowder.

http://question911.com/links.php

[hack89]

33. I have questions about your chemistry ..

According to this,
http://www.mines.edu/academic/mining/csm_isee/csm_ee_course_notes/cn_mngn498s01_01.htm

6) Traces of NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) are always formed

Where are the Nitrogen Oxides? How could there be explosives without Nitrogen Oxides?

Also:

As a general rule, the oxygen balance should be near zero to get the maximum amount of energy release.

Are you saying they deliberately used a less powerful explosive? This makes no sense.

Your first question is ridiculous unless you are willing to show me a previous example of a building fire and collapse producing a rubble pile that burned for months.

I don't understand your faith in Phd's - they are routinely denigrated in this forum when they support the official story. Are you saying that only Phd's that support your theories are to be believed? Have you ever considered that they are merely fishing for further funding or are you simply unaware how most university research is funded?

[petgoat]

34. "simply unaware how most university research is funded?"

I understand that advocacy of 9/11 truth is the kiss of death for university funding.

Your points on chemistry are desperate. Delivering oxygen to ground zero is the point.
Fires are by their nature oxygen-limited.

[hack89]

35. But modern explosive either have a zero oxygen balance ..

or (as is most common) have a negative OB, so how could they deliver oxygen to ground zero? I think you are the one desperately trying to push a very weak argument.

[petgoat]

36. I'd never heard of Oxygen Balance until you brought it up.

Your link says that TNT, with an OB of 74%, is deficient in oxygen.

Something with an OB of zero has more oxygen than TNT.

Explosive molecules are all about delivering the oxygen.

Your Nitrogen Oxides are a non-issue because nobody ever tested for NOx
or other explosive residues.

[hack89]

37. Then there are major gaps in your knowledge ..

perhaps you should google the subject and learn something. You certainly wouldn't be making statements like:

"Explosive molecules are all about delivering the oxygen."

Explosives are all about efficiently using oxygen - left over oxygen
indicates an inefficient process. OB explains it all.

[petgoat]

39. "there are major gaps in your knowledge .."

Not at all. I know everything about everything. :P

Explosives are about efficiently delivering and using the
oxygen. So what's your point? Are you saying that powerful
explosives would not cause high-temperature oxidative erosion
of the the steel?

[hack89]

43. But if the explosion efficiently uses up the oxygen,,

then there is no oxygen to "deliver". Since nearly all modern high explosives are either oxygen deficient or neutral there is no oxygen left over for your erosion.

Secondly, the high temperature of an explosion is extremely transient - explosives destroy steel by shattering them with a high impulse shockwave. Now prolong exposure to fires in the rubble pile while stewing in a mess of organic compounds would probably produce a chemical reaction of one kind or another that would erode steel. The point is that there are many potential sources of oxidation without resorting to explosives.

Is it your contention that the observed erosion was done in fractions of seconds? That's the implication of your theory and I think you will not be able to show that it is possible.

[petgoat]

38. "Phd's...are routinely denigrated in this forum"

They're not denigrated for being PhDs.

They're denigrated for being liars and fools.

[hack89]

41. Liars and fools = do not accept CTs.

at least you are honest about your bias.

[petgoat]

42. You oversimplify.

Is there ANY accounting of 9/11 that is not a conspiracy theory?
(Did joyriding hijackers incompetently fly into buildings?)

Given the possibility that al Qaeda operatives installed explosives
in the towers, it is irrational to reject the explosives hypothesis
without considering it.

Given the fact that the WTC steel was destroyed before it could be
properly sampled, issuing any report without commenting on this
lack of data is unscientific and irresponsible.

Defending a report as flawed, full-of holes, and clearly politically-driven
as the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission Report is also irresponsible.

You seem to regard truth as an either-or proposition. If a CT lacks ironclad
proof, it's out of the question. Can you not conceive of the idea that
sometimes criminals are not convicted, or to you does "not guilty" always mean
"innocent"?

Most of us skeptics are just calling for new investigations; a new trial as it
were.

[Kevin Fenton]

29. Yes, I can

NIST's base case. The towers did not collapse in that one. Will that do?

[Bouvet_Island]

32. I'd like to present you with a counter challlenge.

Can you present a scientific method that would deal with the lack of access to core documents? I mean we are talking about problems on the order of not having access to the buildings' drawings, or not having samples of the important materials. I am not sure independant scientist would get access to any of the wtc steel, at all.

Second if you for a little while go along with the prime theory on who was the guilty party of the demolition, that it involved parts of the US intelligence community. Then you have opened up for explanations that are very hard to research because they have access to technology that are not available in public. To prove explosion, aha then you need to prove that there were use explosives. To prove explosives directly, then you need access to either steel and some particular pieces ... or you have to prove it chemically. But how can you search for "alle known and unknown explosives in the world", when the criminals specifically was interested in not getting caugth and have possible access to for example the worlds leading experts in explosives analysis, as well as full access and control of the cleanup operation.

Note that there are no scientific analysis that gives anything like an explanation for the explained phenomena from the initiation of the collapse and until the fires were put out many months later. You might discard some of the reports like "pools of molten metal", but that still leave you with several good sized anomalies the type of one-off stuff that you'd think would pull both scientists and research $$$ like crazy. Seriously, how nice does it sound to research the 9/11 underground fires. Biggest case, guaranteed national media coverage with interviews and the whole package.

Third, can you name where the funding of the science would come from? Real science and particularly on such a highly problematic subject where about all evidence would have to be reconstructed or gathered through routes that could prove things circumstancially, it cost lots of money and manhours. What about developing new tools for identifying untraceable prototype explosives only used in tests, from old and limited evidence. What organisation would or could invest the money and manpower in this, and of course most importantly, the prestige? What existing milieu could deal with the political and communication challenges of this?

The premise of your implied argument is also dubious. While there are not a polished monument of a work on this any yet, there are plenty discussion in academia, several papers, and most importantly some of the "normal" science published support a different theory than the official if you look closer. Most of the evidence that are well established are so by being included in either the 9/11 report, nist reports or public statements by government agencies. If it would please you to only show something really fishy or impossibly strange and leaving the last part about guilt as a slight bit more uncertain there is not a need for someone calling themselves a scientist to put together a paper. The thread starter puts forward some good examples, that the funding isn't included there and I would like to add myself importantly: that Bin Laden haven't still been caugth. As well as the fact that noone was fired in the government for this

There even is a research group of people consisting of many people whose academic credentials you can't easily dismiss, although mixed with some people that maybe aint as credible. If you want to make your point valid, then pick apart the credentials of the four-five best people and make the case that these people would buy any farfetced theory, when there was nothing there.

The guy that gave us the induction engine and AC electricity was a firm believer in Aliens, he meant that the US should prepare their defences for an imminent attack. While there are lots of crap ufo science, in Norway there are a valley that exhibits ligth phenomena that have been and are currently being monitored scientifically by a Norwegian University as well as real scientists from around the world. It maybe aint as famous yet and the project isn't finished either but the project and the existance of the phenomena is uncontroversial in Norway, even in the so called "skeptics" community. It is a little stretch though to imply Aliens like some people do, but the lights are certainly both flying and unidentified, "objects" is still uncertain. The marks around the word skeptic is because a lot of people that take route of making the conclusions first and work from there uses that word to describe what they do. They also use unscientific methods like throwing away observation they don't like by reflex, making blanket statements and generalizations, taking down strawman arguments, and cherry picking their opponents arguments. A good example of this is the popular mechanics article about 9/11 theories which can be accused of about the lot of this.

The place is called hessdalen.

Science at the edges seldom is mainstream, in all aspects and for different reasons that have to do both with funding, the typical characters and the problem of chaff being mixed with the wheat in the field. It is silly to demand science about this to be mainstream. I'd recommend you the works of Kuhn.

[hack89]

44. So mainstream science doesn't address..

building construction, fire safety, thermodynamic properties of construction materials, static and dynamic building stresses, kinetic impacts, plane crashes and fires, explosive demolition, etc etc?

You are not serious, are you? You are basically arguing that your CTs cannot be answered except through the discovery of some presently unknown scientific principles. I cannot imagine a more self serving view of science.

[Kevin Fenton]

28. Which one do you prefer?

You linked to the (very patchy) MIT studies about the WTC.
Do you agree with MIT or NIST?

[Desertrose]

3. Thank you , Jack R.

You make an excellent point.

The "science" of the "official" 9-11 report is as biased as anything else coming from this govt.

well said.

DR

[hack89]

5. What science are you talking about? nt

[petgoat]

16. Jack Riddler was taking off from the assertion in this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69816&mesg_id=69838

that the 9/11 Commission Report followed the scientific method.

"All scientific progress is made as a result of the use of the scientific method, where reputable
scientists and researchers come to a consensus based upon evidence. And all of this is done through a
very rigorous process that requires consensus within the wider community. The 9/11 Commission Report
follows this method..."

And though the MIT papers may support the notion that the fires brought the towers down, since
controlled demolition hypothesis is not essential to either LIHOP or MIHOP, their practical value in support of "the official story" is weak.

I'll point out that Dr. Griffin and Dr. James Fetzer have both written books on the philosophy of science. (Both are members of scholars for 9/11 truth)

Here are some of Dr. Fetzer's works:

Authored Books:

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration. Dordrecht/Boston/London: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1981. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 69) xiv + 323 pp.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Its Scope and Limits. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990. (Studies in Cognitive Systems, Vol. 4) xviii + 338 pp.

PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE. New York, NY: Paragon House Publishers, 1991. (Paragon Issues in Philosophy) xvii + 170 pp. 2nd edition (revised and expanded), 1996. xx + 191 pp.

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. New York, NY: Paragon House Publishers, 1993. (Paragon Issues in Philosophy) xviii + 197 pp.

Co-Authored Books:

GLOSSARY OF EPISTEMOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (co-authored with Robert F. Almeder). New York, NY: Paragon House Publishers, 1993. (Paragon Glossaries for Research, Reading, and Writing) ix + 149 pp.

GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE (co-authored with Charles E. M. Dunlop). New York, NY: Paragon House Publishers, 1993. (Paragon Glossaries for Research, Reading, and Writing) xii +146 pp.

Edited Books:

SOCIOBIOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985. (Synthese Library, Vol. 180) x + 282 pp.

ASPECTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster/Tokyo: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988. (Studies in Cognitive Systems, Vol. 1) xiii + 385 pp.

PROBABILITY AND CAUSALITY. Essays in Honor of Wesley C. Salmon. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster
/Tokyo: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1988. (Synthese Library, Vol. 192) xvii + 353 pp.

EPISTEMOLOGY AND COGNITION. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. (Studies in Cognitive Systems, Vol. 6) xiii + 301 pp.

FOUNDATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: Recent Developments. New York, NY: Paragon House Publishers, 1993. (Paragon Issues in Philosophy) xvii + 512 pp.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CARL G. HEMPEL: Studies in Science, Explanation, and Rationality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. xxix + 342 pp.

SCIENCE, EXPLANATION, AND RATIONALITY: Aspects of the Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001. xxxiii + 423 pp.

Co-Edited Books:

PHILOSOPHY, MIND, AND COGNITIVE INQUIRY. Resources for Understanding Mental Processes (co-edited with David Cole and Terry L. Rankin). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
1990. (Studies in Cognitive Systems, Vol. 3) xi -+ 449 pp.

DEFINITIONS AND DEFINABILITY: Philosophical Perspectives (co-edited with David Shatz and George Schlesinger). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. (Synthese Library, Vol. 216)
ix + 323 pp.

PROGRAM VERIFICATION. Fundamental Issues in Computer Science (co-edited with Timothy Colburn and Terry L. Rankin). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. (Studies in Cog-
nitive Systems, Vol. 14) xiii + 457 pp.

THE NEW THEORY OF REFERENCE: Kripke, Marcus, and Its Origins (co-edited with Paul W. Humphreys). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. (Synthese Library, Vol. 270) xiii + 290 pp.

[rman]

17. NIST: Redefining the Scientific Method

NIST spend a lot of resources on computer models of the crashes and the fires, but none on the collapses. Not modeling the collapses means there's no comparison of their proposed collapse mechanism versus actual collapse. That's not particularly scientific, rendering the NIST report almost entirely useless.

[petgoat]

19. "almost entirely useless"

I disagree. It's an object lesson and a monument to the politicization of science
and to institutional mendacity.

[dchill]

23. "institutional mendacity"

And apparently there are those - even around DU - who are more than ready to buy it.

[rman]

40. well ok... Useless in helping to expose the truth.

No doubt this is usefull to certain individuals.

[leftofthedial]

22. why do you want the terrorists to win?

the report wasn't science. it was intelligent design.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

27. Science is great, but a little common sense never hurt anyone either

KSM was mentioned in Bush's speech the other day, Bush called him the Mastermind of 911.

Well, the mastermind of 911 has been in custody for nearly 3 years or better now, why has he not been put on trial by now? Hasn't all his info been tortured out of him by now, you suppose? I would think so. What possible reason could there be he hasn't been put on trial, especially being the Mastermind?

Common sense tells me it's all a big lie. Science confirms it.

[Kevin Fenton]

30. KSM never will be tried

All/most of the evidence against him was obtained by torture. Any prosecution would be likely to collapse for that reason. At the very least, he could turn it into a propaganda victory, as Saddam Hussein is doing now.

btw, I think he did it.