Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Evan Burton]

I'd ask everyone to take heed of my message about civility.

I'm going to let previous insults - perceived or otherwise - slide, and everyone start with a fresh card. You can express displeasure at someone, or even disgust - just do it civilly.

[Evan Burton]

Do you even read this stuff and check it out or do you just take it on faith because it fits your worldview?

It appears the good doctor is really a HALF-TRUTHER. If he gets something like this wrong why should we believe ANYTHING he says?

"They also make large commercial planes for FedEx that fly by remote control as reported by the Associated Press. The “success” of this operation depended on the planes reaching their destination. Would the planners (be they Arab or otherwise) trust poorly trained “pilots” when this technology was at their disposal?"

Totally untrue. A FEDEX 727 was TESTED with an autoland system. This system was NOT a remote control system but rather an update to the autopilot system, and it was for landing only. The PLANE WAS NOT FLOWN BY REMOTE CONTROL!

Peter,

For me that is a very important point. Autoland systems are used in a variety of aircraft. It is NOT a "remote control", any more than an autopilot system that steers your boat for you.

I also think I previously mentioned how some of this is subjective. My current assignment is in the standards & operational airworthiness cell for naval aviation in Australia. I work with the Chief Pilot Examiner for the RAN. I work with a multitude of pilots from a variety of backgrounds. I also have friends who pilot passenger-type aircraft, from DHC-8s to A300s to B747s.

None have expressed any doubt that the hijackers could have flown the aircraft as claimed.

I am sure you can find qualified people who disagree. So how do we resolve this? Add up the flight hours and see who wins? See who can collect the greater number of professional pilots?

If I can take one untrained person and have them successfully fly all the flights, does that mean I am right? If they can't, does it mean you are right?

I think that this is an area where no definitive conclusion can be drawn.

[Evan Burton]

When you can deal with the uncomfortable facts that destroy your position in an intellectually honest manner, please check in again.

I'm not however holding my breath that it will ever happen.

BTW, where is your PROOF that thermate/thermaite is USED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

Were you just born this minute?

You can continue with your grade-school level posts. Your not impressing anyone. Every day the % of those who seriously doubt the offical version of 911 is growing.

Deal with it. Learn to live with it. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Blah Blah Blah, Translated from lemkinspeak,

"I can't prove anything so I'll continue my normal rants in the hopes no one notices I have no clothes."

So where is your PROOF lemkin?

Craig,

Reminder about being civil. You appear to be becoming a little heated. Don't let it continue to evolve into an insult to which I will have to address.

Thanks.

[Anthony Thorne]

I did this review for Amazon in an attempt to encourage more readers of the book. It might be helping a little as there's only a few reviews so far and the book is selling reasonably well. Board member William Kelly was also helpful in giving my review a proofread. I hope some folk here find this useful.

Peter Dale Scott's THE ROAD TO 9/11 -

A deep, convincing analysis of the road to conspiracy and disaster.

Peter Dale Scott's long-in-the-works THE ROAD TO 9/11 is outstanding, powerful, sad, in a way, and quietly gripping. (It's also notable for the fact that the University of California Press only reportedly published it after they'd spent the better part of a year scrupulously fact checking and cautiously vetting it for accuracy). Glib summaries aren't likely to do it justice. There have been several books published so far that address the official story offered about 9/11 with a critical eye, all of which basically allege that the White House and US intelligence agencies have covered up their own, complicated roles in the terror attacks of 2001. Scott's new book makes some reference to and generally builds upon a number of those works, but simultaneously encompasses a far broader sweep, wields (conversely) a simpler, more direct argument, and provides a new level of hard-to-argue-with credibility to the process of naming specific names.

The first lengthy section of the book features Scott's run through of recent events in US history, with an emphasis on various 'shadow government' elements of the US political system, and how these elements have moved into the foreground in recent years. (Scott uses the term `shadow government' to encompass the various avenues used by governments - not just in the US - to undertake certain activities off the books, under the radar, or illegally). Scott notes the disintegration of the Nixon presidency as being a starting-point for slowly building incidents and trends related to an active `shadow government' that have re-emerged in the disaster of 9/11 and the subsequent, seemingly comprehensive cover-up. Little known government plans from the Nixon era for militarily suppressing public dissent (via the secretive, innocuously titled `Operation Garden Plot') are discussed here. Then, following the post-Nixon rise to prominence of Cheney and Rumsfeld during the Ford presidency, Scott notes how these martial-law ambitions eventually reappeared in a different form during the Iran-Contra events via the newly politicized FEMA and Lt. Col. Oliver North's `REX 84' plan. REX 84 evoked (in the event of an unspecified future `national emergency') the widespread surveillance (and possible detention) of political dissenters, the suspension of the U.S. constitution, and the activation of a secretive, parallel government set up to run things away from the pesky oversight of Senate and Congress. It's carefully noted early on that these aims were strongly desired by both Cheney and Rumsfeld, with the two of them conducting much of the highest level planning at the time for all the above, and the accompanying process given the title of `Continuity of Government', or `COG'. (Scott jokes darkly that in the light of the sweeping measures it would, and eventually did, enable post 9/11, `Change of Government' is a much more accurate description). Cheney pushed hard to enable and lay the groundwork for COG through FEMA in the 80's - groundwork which would institute a parallel government in the event of a national crisis - and Scott eventually notes what he dryly calls an `arresting coincidence'. Once Cheney and FEMA are reunited in May 2001, the same COG planning team from the Iran-Contra era in the 1980's was put forth by George W. Bush as a terrorism task force, and then a major terrorist attack on the United States allowed those same folks to implement COG. (Though Scott finished the bulk of THE ROAD TO 9/11 in 2006, he also makes use here at one point of information just revealed in Andrew Cockburn's 2007 biography RUMSFELD: HIS RISE, FALL AND CATASTROPHIC LEGACY. Cockburn's book notes how Rumsfeld and other hard-line Republican hawks with an eye on the future had privately kept the COG / parallel government exercises alive during the 90's in training exercise / bull sessions where they would "..castigate the Clinton administration in the most extreme way", and where the prior evoked COG threat of choice, the Soviets, had been replaced by a new designated foe thought of as likely able to provoke a useful national emergency - terrorists).

Dramatically, Scott (a veteran chronicler and researcher of another painful, much debated event from American political history) holds firm in refusing to water down his conclusions. During the eventual terrorist attacks of September 2001, COG boosters Cheney and Rumsfeld both described themselves (along with other members of the Bush administration) as being `out of the loop' during key moments of the crisis that could have affected the events of the day. Scott begs to differ. THE ROAD TO 9/11 can be seen as one long build-up to the most careful, detailed examination possible of just what the official record, supporting documents, pertinent testimony, and reports from the day actually suggest Cheney and Rumsfeld were up to during a specific period of time that morning. Clearly, testimony from Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and others openly contradicts what Cheney and the 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe happened. In a gripping, methodically documented chapter, Scott breaks the relevant testimony down thoroughly, statement by statement, to examine what he believes really occurred at the Pentagon that morning. Would it be too much to ask for the mainstream media to do their job and examine why the specific pieces of evidence and testimony Scott outlines in this book were given the widest possible berth by the 9/11 Commission Report authors?

Elsewhere in THE ROAD TO 9/11, the October Surprise Iran hostage scandal prior to Reagan's election is carefully dissected. Scott notes how select elements of the upper Republican Party, alongside elements of the intelligence agency community sympathetic to their aims, showed (from the available evidence) a probable willingness to commit treason and endanger American lives for the pursuit of various goals. Scott also carefully links the October Surprise scandal, and Bush Senior's documented involvement with Saudi arms-dealing, to the eventual assistance provided by Bush Jr's administration in flying various Bin Laden family members and Saudis out of the US shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Scott describes the event succinctly, noting: "People who have once collaborated secretly in an impeachable if not treasonable offence cannot dispense lightly with their co-conspirators".

Midway through the book, Scott provides a very long, detailed recounting of al Qaeda's use by various covert arms of government as a tool to, among other things, acquire and use illegal drug trade funds. He follows the FBI and CIA's involvement with terrorist double agents, noting how a lack of congressional oversight has historically led to greater and greater excesses. The infamous `out of control' BCCI money-laundering operation is examined, along with the mainstream media's efforts to avoid studying the particular relationship the BCCI (and various Bush/CIA related spook groups) seemingly had in funding and utilising al Qaeda. One comment made here by Scott seems pertinent, and by itself sums up much of the content of his book. "America's out-of-control entanglements with jihadi Islamists, and particularly with the ISI, underlie the still misunderstood events of 9/11, and the ongoing instability of the U.S. bureacracy and media to report honestly either on what happened that day, or on what these events reveal about the deep structure of U.S global politics."

As noted before, Scott's final chapters dissect the public record and various 'official' accounts of the events of the day, with an eye to examining Rumsfeld and, in particular, Cheney's activities. Over and over in this section, Scott convincingly shows that the public record itself, when analyzed carefully, marks Cheney as a key element of a likely cover-up, and deserving of being questioned under oath in regards to his behavior on the day. It's evident that, repeatedly, the 9/11 Commission Report really worked overtime to heave the spotlight away from dwelling on just exactly what Cheney and Rumsfeld were up to during a key period of time that morning. Scott's final chapter puts things in perspective, and offers suggestions and words of encouragement for the future

There's much more featured, as I have just cherry picked some central points, but Scott's powerful, involving analysis of US covert policy and its relationship to the events of 9/11 is a tour-de-force. I'll also note that, though the book is heavily footnoted and carries a lengthy bibliography, I found it to be more readable and emotionally engaging than some of his earlier works. (There are some thoughtful and appropriate personal touches). It's worth finally mentioning that Scott cleverly begins each new section of the book with highly appropriate quotes pertaining to the chapter that follows. After reading this book, and thinking quietly for a while about the detailed, disquieting picture it reveals, the most resonant to me was the all-too-relevant comment from onetime US intelligence-linked al Qaeda trainer Ali Mohamed: "Americans see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear."

[Michael Hogan]

In another thread started by Anthony, Scott and his book are discussed:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...eter+dale+scott

According to John Simkin, Peter Dale Scott has agreed to answer questions about The Road to 9/11 on this Forum.

[William Kelly]

Thanks for that review Anthony,

It took Peter five years to write the book so it's taking me more than usual to read it, but I'm reading and writing a review as well.

In the meantime, thanks to Cythia McKinney for calling attention to Vic Sadot, who has written some interesting and sadly funny songs like "Cheney's In the Bunker," with the refrain, "Do the orders still stand, Sir?"

And "The Ballad of Pat Tillman" and a Katrina song as well.

http://www.last.fm/music/Vic+Sadot/_/Chene...s+in+the+Bunker

BK

Edited October 2, 2007 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

Edward J Epstein is well known to students and researchers of President Kennedy's murder, having authored three books (Inquest, Legend, Counterplot) on the Warren Commission, Lee Oswald, and the Garrison investigation.

Epstein's website offers some interesting questions and comments on the events surrounding 9/11/2001.

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/walking_catlev2.htm

[William Kelly]

Edward J Epstein is well known to students and researchers of President Kennedy's murder, having authored three books (Inquest, Legend, Counterplot) on the Warren Commission, Lee Oswald, and the Garrison investigation.

Epstein's website offers some interesting questions and comments on the events surrounding 9/11/2001.

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/walking_catlev2.htm

Thank you Michael,

I was going to add some commentary on dissinformation, but EJE says it all himself:

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/whokilled.htm

......at the core of the dispute is not merely a

jurisdictional struggle over who should test the

probity of exotic intelligence, but a powerful disagreement

over the vulnerability of American intelligence

to deception on matters of vital national

security.

As

early as the 16th century Machiavelli concluded

that there were only two means for a nation to gain

its objective from an unwilling adversary: force or

fraud. Since the application of force entailed expending

resources and taking serious risks, Machiavelli

strongly recommended that a ruler should

"never attempt to win by force what he might

otherwise win by fraud." The basic economy of

power that Machiavelli described is, if anything,

even more relevant in an age of nuclear weapons.

To be successful, fraud requires changing an adversary's

perceptions of reality. It is commonly employed

in wartime to mislead an enemy into believing

that a military force is either stronger or weaker

than it is in reality; indeed, as the Chinese strategist

Sun Tzu wrote in the 4th century B.C.E., "All warfare

is based on deception." In peacetime, though

its applications are far less obvious, fraud still remains

an effective means of altering the geopolitical

balance of power.

Disinformation, which aims at extending state policy,

is a very different concept in Soviet doctrine from propaganda. Whereas disinformation aims at misleading an

enemy government into making a disadvantageous decision, propaganda aims at misleading public opinion so that it resists the advantageous decisions of its government. The audience for disinformation is thus government decisionmakers, and the prime channel for reaching this audience is through the intelligence service upon which they rely for their secret information. The data itself are usually secret and, as a recent CIA study notes, "almost never receive public attention."

BK: It's just that EJE only sees the Commie dizzinformation, and not the CIA's, of which he himself propagates.

The sections on 9'/11 is very concise, and I especially like the section on the Anthrax attacks.

Edited October 4, 2007 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

It's just that EJE (Epstein) only sees the Commie dizzinformation, and not the CIA's, of which he himself propagates.

That's true. I started a thread in the JFK section of the Forum on this high ranking Soviet intel defector who has a book coming out entitled Program to Kill. He postulates that the Soviets were running Oswald but called him off of the assassination shortly before President Kennedy visited Dallas. According to the author, Oswald went ahead and did it on his own. I mention it here because the author mentions Epstein often in his citations at the end of the interview. See here:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read...A9-DF2FD143C6B1

I just have this feeling that it's possible, if not likely that he and Epstein actually collaborated on this book in some way, shape or form.

[Don Jeffries]

Edward Epstein should have garnered suspicion from the minute he made a name for himself with "Inquest." As Harold Weisberg pointed out, the attention paid to this slim, unimpressive volume (which was born out of a college thesis) was way out of proportion to anything inside it. Epstein was barely ever any kind of critic, and quickly metamorphasized into a born-again lone-nutter (the first of many similar transformations of "conspiracy theorists," as it turned out).

Epstein was the last known person to be with George DeMohrenschildt before he committed "suicide." For that, and many other reasons, no one should pay attention to anything he says.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Michael, thanks to the link to Epstein's site. I trawled through it fairly thoroughly on the 911 side of things and came away with the impression that Epstein is quitely selling the Arab terrorist did it side of the equation. In each section he started off with words like "What is known" (or similar) and while I hold out no expertise on 911, it struck me as being clearly one-sided on what evidence he accepts as reality -- i.e., the official government view.

Interestingly, he has a restricted access in level 3 under the "Morphing Osama bin Laden" section. You neeed to click on the "Manchurian Candidate" link and read the problem he poses.

My answer (I didn't post it) is that if I were head of the Secret Service, I would conclude it was safe to send the President to every City and have done with it. However, I don't think I will be given Manchurian candidate status.

David

[Len Colby]

Craig and I have asked several times for references but none of the “truthers” has provided one. Peter said he had but but is not the same as actually doing so.

As I’ve stated earlier the only reference I could find was to it being used in military bridge demolitions. Bridges are of course totally different structures than buildings. I doubt the army would be concerned if. They could make one collapse symmetrically. Symmetrical building demolitions depended on supports being cut with factions of a second precision. As even Dr. Jones acknowledged in one of his presentations thermate would probably take a few seconds to have cut through the massive columns (an inch {2.5 cm}or more thick on the impact floors 4 inches {10 cm} at ground level).

It’s also yet to be reasonably explained how thermate which is gravity driven could have cut the beams horizontally or even diagonally. Jones showed a demonstration of a device which would have been very difficult if not impossible to conceal that could cut small hole but neither he nor anybody else has presented a realistic scenario of how it could be used to have cut the huge columns. Funny that he didn’t “put his money where his mouth was” and try to cut anything approaching the size of a WTC column did he fear it might not actually work or take even longer than he acknowledged?

Peter cited PATENT# 6183569 B1

There are several problems with this reference.

1) First and foremost is that patent applicants are under no obligation to provide evidence their inventions work or even produce a prototype. The only question is whether or not the idea is original or not. So we have no evidence that such a device was ever made let alone that they could have felled the towers let alone they were ever used in a CD.

2) No such devices were found at “ground zero” the patent specifies a maximum nozzle width of “4 inches”*. According to a leading truther site quoting and engineering journal “Some of the core columns apparently had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches”**. The smaller columns would have been 104 inches in circumference the larger ones 148 inches thus 26 – 37 such devices would have been required to cut each column lets say an average of about 30 per column the cores alone had 47 columns thus about 1500 of them would have been requited per tower if they were cut on one floor only. Let’s not forget that“inside jobbers” claim that the speed and symmetry of the collapses indicated the columns were cut on various floors. The author of a “’peer’ ‘reviewed’” paper linked by Peter guesstimated every 20 floors (most "truthers" seem to think the interval was less) which would give us six floors per tower 6 x 2 x 1500 = 18,000. It is completely unreasonable to imagine that around 20 thousand such devices could have been planted without detection and that not a single one would be found after the towers collapsed.

* http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...p;RS=PN/6183569

** http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

3) It appears quite bulky note that it is several times thicker than the “target material”

Edited October 8, 2007 by Len Colby

[Craig Lamson]

Craig and I have asked several times for references but none of the “truthers” has provided one. Peter said he had but but is not the same as actually doing so.

As I’ve stated earlier the only reference I could find was to it being used in military bridge demolitions. Bridges are of course totally different structures than buildings. I doubt the army would be concerned if. They could make one collapse symmetrically. Symmetrical building demolitions depended on supports being cut with factions of a second precision. As even Dr. Jones acknowledged in one of his presentations thermate would probably take a few seconds to have cut through the massive columns (an inch {2.5 cm}or more thick on the impact floors 4 inches {10 cm} at ground level).

It’s also yet to be reasonably explained how thermate which is gravity driven could have cut the beams horizontally or even diagonally. Jones showed a demonstration of a device which would have been very difficult if not impossible to conceal that could cut small hole but neither he nor anybody else has presented a realistic scenario of how it could be used to have cut the huge columns. Funny that he didn’t “put his money where his mouth was” and try to cut anything approaching the size of a WTC column did he fear it might not actually work or take even longer than he acknowledged?

Peter cited PATENT# 6183569 B1

There are several problems with this reference.

1) First and foremost is that patent applicants are under no obligation to provide evidence their inventions work or even produce a prototype. The only question is whether or not the idea is original or not. So we have no evidence that such a device was ever made let alone that they could have felled the towers let alone they were ever used in a CD.

2) No such devices were found at “ground zero” the patent specifies a maximum nozzle width of “4 inches”*. According to a leading truther site quoting and engineering journal “Some of the core columns apparently had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches”**. The smaller columns would have been 104 inches in circumference the larger ones 148 inches thus 26 – 37 such devices would have been required to cut each column lets say an average of about 30 per column the cores alone had 47 columns thus about 1500 of them would have been requited per tower if they were cut on one floor only. Let’s not forget that“inside jobbers” claim that the speed and symmetry of the collapses indicated the columns were cut on various floors. The author of a “’peer’ ‘reviewed’” paper linked by Peter guesstimated every 20 floors (most "truthers" seem to think the interval was less) which would give us six floors per tower 6 x 2 x 1500 = 18,000. It is completely unreasonable to imagine that around 20 thousand such devices could have been planted without detection and that not a single one would be found after the towers collapsed.

* http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...p;RS=PN/6183569

** http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

3) It appears quite bulky note that it is several times thicker than the “target material”

The inability to actually document the use of thermate in CD of steel framed buildings indicates a huge hole in that theory, and why that energy beams weapon is looking better by the second!

[Len Colby]

There is another major problem with the termite hypothesis. One of its early proponents was Dr. D.P.Grimmer a physicist who calculated that 0.439 m3 of termite would be required to cut the largest columns . The cube root of 0.439 = 0.76, thus if all the thermite was stored in a central cube shaped reservoir its internal dimensions would be 76 cm (30 inches) per side.

http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Possible...Thermite_in_WTC

But I calculated 37 devices for the larger columns. That however was probablly in error because it didn’t take into account the wall thickness of the device. Let’s assume a model with a 4 inch wide nozzle model has a width of 5 inches. The number needed would be reduced to 30. The exact number of devices make little difference, the lower the number the larger the reservoirs would need to be. 0.439 m3 / 30 = 0.0146 m3 this would be the volume of thermite per device. The cube root of 0.0146 m3 = 24.4 cm (9.6 inches), thus a 10 inch per side cube shaped reservoir could hold the requisite amount of thermite. But the if the width of the reservoir was only 4 inches the other inner dimensions would have to be about 15 x 15 or 110 x 2 inches (any combination which would get us to about 220 sq. inches). The devices would have had to have been quite large, just the thermite reservoirs would have been larger than a scanner or coffee table book. I calculated for 2 inches because I don’t imagine the clearance between the elevator cars and columns was more than that. How exactly would the plotters have gotten over 10,000 9 foot long devices into the tower with out being noticed?

One could claim that thermate is more efficient than thermite so that less would be required but if that were true one wonders why the patent for the cutting device mentions only thermite. Also there are few references to support such a conclusion. One of the few is a patent application for a thermite grenade which states that “Thermate-TH3, a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives, was found to be superior to thermites” but it undermines the thermate theory more than it helps it:

It said of a grenade patented in 1997 “containing approximately 350 g of thermate-TH3 charge is capable of burning through a sheet of 1-inch thick steel plate in about 8 second reaction time…It is only capable of burning a 7/8" diameter hole”

0.8 seconds let alone 8 seconds is obviously far too long for a precision demolition

The inventors claimed their device produced superior results but using thermite saying the version “filled with approximately 0.6 lb of incendiary mixture” was “capable of producing an approximately 2" diameter hole through 1/4 inch thick steel plate”

http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...&id=6766744

But if the claims of the “thermite/thermate” camp are correct Grimmer probably under estimated the amount that would have been necessary because it is claimed that the material was responsible for keeping steel molten for weeks. Obviously the amount need to melt the steel in the columns for the faction of a second nesicarry to cut them would be far less than the amount needed to cut them AND keep the steel molten for weeks.

[Peter McKenna]

There is another major problem with the termite hypothesis. One of its early proponents was Dr. D.P.Grimmer a physicist who calculated that 0.439 m3 of termite would be required to cut the largest columns . The cube root of 0.439 = 0.76, thus if all the thermite was stored in a central cube shaped reservoir its internal dimensions would be 76 cm (30 inches) per side.

http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Possible...Thermite_in_WTC

Reviewing the pictures of the cut columns and beams (cut on the bias) the cuts were ovbiously made using flame or carbon arc gouge methods. These methods employ forced gas clearing of the slag to allow the efficient cutting of the member.

Exothermic methods employing thermite or thermate would leave a very rough and slag laden cut, neither very straight nor clean.

I would also dispute any theory which includes exothermic material flow to the outside of the building. The heat contained in a pool of such material, after cutting a beam would prevent it from being directed to the exterior of the building.

The reason I would doubt if exothermics would be useful in CD are precisely these reasons, the material does not clear the cut efficiently and would tend to pool at inopportune locations.

Also, the building architects have stated that the WTC 1 and 2 were "designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner". This theory is based on the load bearing capability of the building with one wall and adjoining corners removed. It has been stated that the strength of the remaining structure would be sufficient for "live loads".

I have some experience (i.e. review of design) with building design for extreme dynamic loading due to forces such as jetliner impact. There has been controversy even when a structure with four foot thick concerete walls using number 18 rebar (reinforcing steel), densely woven, interior and exterior, is hypothesized to undergo a jetliner collision and (structurally) which is much stronger than the WTC structures (by several orders of magnitude). Anyone who pronounces the WTC 1 and 2 towers capable of withstanding such loading is fantasizing. In fact without dynamic modeling, the dynamic loading of a jetliner impact and subsequent building behavior cannot be determined. That is why the NIST report has substance.

I guess that suggests the directed energy weapon hypothesis, which is so ludicrous, I can't begin to address. But it is imaginative.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Peter McKenna