CarolC,

"to not submit their work to any scrutiny or review, and to marginalize and/or demonize anyone who questions their methods or conclusions."


This is what I see those who state that there must be a coverup, and that only explainations that blame the Bush Administration are acceptable are doing.

I have no problem with investigation: But I object to the idea that the only acceptable results are those that blame the Bush administration BEFORE the investigation has been made as to what happened. It is likely that there is information that the government has NOT released about what happened: In general, I think it should be made available. But NOT if it contributes to a higher death toll in the next- and there will be a next- terrorist incident.

As far as I have seen, looking at the points presented both here, on the various sites, and the DVD sent out about it ( from an earlier thread) There is no EVIDENCE that this was a Bush conspiracy. That does NOT mean I oppose a detailed review of the various reports- but it does mean that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on those who make claims that are only speculation.

My hypothosis about aliens has MORE proof than any claim of explosive charges: The simple claim that the tower fell too fast is evidence that ONLY an increase in gravity could have brought it down. There were NO visible rocket engines PUSHING it, and any explosive charges IN the building would have DELAYED the fall, since they would have provided a force upwards, slowing the fall of material above them.


Yet the claims are made that it "MUST" have been controlled demolition, in spite of the evidence against it.

"The approach being used ...is not how we do science."