Reply #56: "Confirmation bias writ large." [View All]

[petgoat]

Au contraire, Monsieur Q.E.D.

You're the one who starts with the assumption that 9/11 skeptics are loony conspiracy
theorists whose arguments must therefore be irrational.

I've said that NIST's methodology in heating up model floor trusses with 3.4 MW burners
are of questionable validity.

Your objections that scientific standards of proof are not provided does not apply to a situation
where the evidence is not available because it is either 1) secret or 2) destroyed.

Also, if scientific proof were required in criminal cases you'd never see a conviction--and we're
operating at the grand jury level here--not claiming conviction, trying to determine if there's
probable cause to support an investigation.

You are assuming that I have come to a conclusion about the facts. The only conclusions I
have come to are that the destruction of evidence looks suspicious and we need a new
investigation.