The Mathematical Improbability of Large Conspiracy Theories
One of the points we have always tried to make here is that although conspiracies certainly happen, any conspiracy more complex than a burglary or assassination involving half a dozen people inevitably becomes exposed. The Truthers on the other hand create these theories involving the ridiculously complex cooperation of thousands of people across dozens of different organizations, often for no other reason than that they need it to be so in order to fit their pet theory.
A British academic explores this fact in more scientific terms:
If you’re thinking of creating a massive conspiracy, you may be better scaling back your plans, according to an Oxford University researcher. While we can all keep a secret, a study by Dr David Robert Grimes suggests that large groups of people sharing in a conspiracy will very quickly give themselves away. The study is published online by journal PLOS ONE.
posted by James B. @ 10:33 AM
45 comments
45 Comments:
So very true! Now take into account Brian's fantasy with the 9/11 Widows. He claims their questions haven't been answered when in reality they have been answered and those that weren't answered weren't related to 9/11 in general. So for Brian to admit that there's a "cover-up" because the Widows questions weren't answered makes it improbable that those questions were valid in the first place. Which makes Brian's futile attempts to claim that their "unanswered questions" refutes the possibility that those questions make up any kind of conspiracy.
But of course it's Brian's intuition to place blame on the Widows for a "cover-up".
Where do you get the idea that thousands would need to be involved in the 9/11 op? Does the thousands include masseuses and caterers and interior decorators? Does it include hired escorts who might hear drunken pillow talk?
Stundie, in reality only 27 of the widows' 300 questions to the 9/11 Commission were answered. Which of their 300 questions "weren't related to 9/11 in general"?
How do questions make up a conspiracy? What are you talking about?
Speaking of Michael Shermer, y'all might be interested in his radio interview on KPFA
recently: https://kpfa.org/episode/sunday-show-january-10-2016/
Also, here's a commentator's commentating commentary:
Dr. Shermer's ignorance about 9/11 is quite shocking. He confidently asserts a 2002-era collapse theory about the WTC towers, apparently unaware that the official 2005 report repudiated that theory.
His dismissal as "smoke from fires" of the mysterious jets of pulverized building materials emanating from isolated windows as much as 40 stories below the active collapse zone--floors that had no fires--is quite reckless.
He blithely claims there's no mystery to WTC7's collapse, apparently unaware that the NYT said engineers were baffled by it, the FEMA report said it could not explain it, and it took NIST several years to come up with a plausible-sounding story. His claim that the steel structure sagged and got weaker from fire damage is contrary to NIST's collapse initiation mechanism, which would be impossible had the steel sagged.
He then argues from incredulity that explosive or incendiary charges could not have been planted in the three buildings because of the building security. Apparently he does not know that most of the buildings' core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts, and that the twin towers had an elevator renovations project going on in the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts in the 9 months before 9/11 that would have provided cover for construction-type activity going on in the shafts. Apparently he does not know that the four floors immediately above the floor where the collapse allegedly began in WTC7 were all, according to FEMA, vacant.
He then claims it would take hundreds or even thousands of charges to take a tower down. He does not explain why it would take so many charges to do a job that he believes was caused by fire and weak floor anchors. Anything fire can do, incendiaries can do better.
Further commentary on Dr. Shermer's interview:
First 20 min. tell Shermer's intellectual history—-freeing himself from dogmatic christian doctrine, dabbling in tonics to aid competitive bicycling, challenging alternative medicines.
By 24 minutes he's claiming the towers fell because flimsy floor anchors snapped and collapsing floors created a cascading effect of pancaking floors. It seems he doesn't know that his 2002-era FEMA theory was rejected by NIST's 2005 study.
He then implies (wrongly) that demolitions are always done bottom up, and thus the towers' top-down collapse is inconsistent with demolition.
The mysterious jets of pulverized building materials emanating from isolated windows as much as 40 stories below the active collapse zone (“squibs”) he dismisses as “smoke from the fires” even though most of these came from floors that had no fires.
He claims there's no mystery to WTC7's collapse, apparently unaware that the NYT said engineers were baffled by it, FEMA said they could not explain it, and NIST took several years to come up with a story. His claim that the steel structure sagged and weakened from fire damage contradicts NIST's collapse initiation mechanism, which is impossible with saggy steel.
He then argues from incredulity that explosive or incendiary charges could not have been planted in the three buildings because of the building security. Apparently he does not know that most of the buildings' core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts, and that the towers had an elevator renovations project going on in the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts in the 9 months before 9/11 that would have provided cover for construction-type activity going on in the shafts. Apparently he does not know that in WTC7 the four floors immediately above the floor where the collapse allegedly began were all, according to FEMA, vacant.
He then claims it would take hundreds or thousands of charges to take a tower down. He does not explain why it would take so many charges to do a job that he believes was caused by fire and weak floor anchors. Anything fire can do, incendiaries can do better. Apparently Dr. Shermer does not know that explosives expert Dr. Van Romero opined that a few charges in key places could bring the towers down. Apparently Dr. Shermer does not know that according to the discredited "pancake theory" he advocates, a very few failing truss anchors could start a chain reaction that "unzipped" the floors from the outer walls and brought the towers down.
He claims it would take weeks of breaking through drywall to plant explosives, but does not explain why this is difficult, or necessary, or what drywall needs to be broken. (Drywall is removed before conventional demolitions to avoid dust.)
He then claims that the buildings began to collapse from the exact impact floors, and wonders how demolitionists would know what floors the planes would hit. In the case of WTC1, the Sauret video shows that the collapse began well above the impact zone. Radio beacons would allow the planes to be flown in on the autopilot. Even if the exact impact floors were not known in advance, planting redundant charges up and down would allow the appropriate charges to be selected under computer control for wireless activation.
At 33 he claims that before 9/11 nobody conceived of such an attack. Apparently he didn't know Qaeda's plan to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings (including the Pentagon and the WTC) had been known to US authorities since 1995, and did not know that both the UK and Germany warned of upcoming attacks using hijacked commercial aircraft as flying bombs.
At 35 he claims the CIA is too incompetent to pull off 9/11, and people can't keep their mouth shut, and basically conspiracies are impossible.
BTW, it's time to celebrate 7 years of Brian Good posting hysterical spam on this blog. It all started back in 2009 as it always does with Brian: babbling about invisible widows with "questions" and homosexual lust for Willie Rodriguez. It's rather hilarious that Brian started posting spam here just as 9/11 truth pretty much ended as GWB left the White House. Brian will probably start posting birther spam on some other blog next year at this time if he wants to be consistently late to conspiracy theory parties.
Of course, 7 years later, he still hasn't convinced a single person that there are widows with questions, and he still hasn't convinced a single person that Willie Rodriguez is a fraud, but he has been the subject of endless merciless ridicule over the fact that he has no job and lives with his parents, his hideous homeless mullet, the fact that he wears women's underwear, the fact that he was banned from the truth movement, etc.
But as you can see above, 7 years of abject failure isn't going to stop Brian Good. Oh no, he'll continue to blanket this place with hysterical spam. And we'll continue to remind him that 2016 will end just as 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 did: with Willie Rodriguez a hero, with no known widows with questions, and with Brian unemployed and living with his parents.
More lyin Iananityfrom a Lyin Ianinny, I see.
9/11 Truth is dead? More than 2400 architects and engineers have signed the petition calling for new investigations of 9/11, advertising campaigns have been conducted in a dozen cities, and legislation has been floated to release the 28 redacted pages of the congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11. 9/11 Truth is stronger than ever.
What's dead is debunkery. Dr. Michael Shermer revealed himself for a misinformed ignoramus on KPFA radio, JREF seems to have withered away, and 911myths.com is 404. I'm really sorry about 911myths, because I really enjoyed pointing out that their front page featured a 10-year-old paper that claimed the truth movement was dead.
More than 2400 architects and engineers have signed the petition calling for new investigations of 9/11, advertising campaigns have been conducted in a dozen cities, and legislation has been floated to release the 28 redacted pages of the congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11.
Thanks for proving my point. A tiny crackpot fringe of architects and engineers have accomplished nothing. There was an advertising campaign that nobody remembers. And there's dead legislation in Congress. 9/11 truth is dead.
What's dead is debunkery. Dr. Michael Shermer revealed himself for a misinformed ignoramus on KPFA radio, JREF seems to have withered away, and 911myths.com is 404. I'm really sorry about 911myths, because I really enjoyed pointing out that their front page featured a 10-year-old paper that claimed the truth movement was dead.
Yes, what use is debunking some dead conspiracy theory? You don't see too many people debunking the claim that Johnny Manziel is the son of God either. Sane people who have normal lives have moved on. You're the only one still here, because you're a mentally ill failure at life.
Well, I'm still here, but only to humiliate you by reminding you of what a failure you are.
I win again, Brian.
Yeah, da twoof is dead, but some twoofers live on, what else do they have to do.
While Donald Trump isn't a twoofer himself, I notice his campaign is attracting them and he is seems to be butt buddies with Alex Jones.
911myths.com is working fine.
But indeed, there is nothing more to debunk, so the site is outofdate. The creator has moved on since then.
[i]Where do you get the idea that thousands would need to be involved in the 9/11 op?[/i]
in order to rig the towers for demolition, to hurdle away all the evidence, to create fraud reports by fema, nist, ntsb and the 911 commission, to fake plane crashes in manhattan, washington and shanksville, including fake footage, eye witnesses, planting of fake evidence, to get rid of the real planes and passengers, to fake airplane phone calls, to make norad stand down, destroy the real evidence, etc. etc.
You cannot do that with just a handful of people, brian.
You cannot do that with just a handful of people, brian.
Well, Brian may have a point. If the invisible silent explosives and the magic spray-on thermite were done by elves as Brian believes, then you really don't need a lot of people. I mean, the Wicked Witch of the West had flying monkeys carry out her conspiracy.
On that note, planting micro-nukes in the towers would not involve a lot of people if modified attack baboons took care of the job.
th, why would the people who "hurdle away the evidence" be co-conspirators? They were clean-up workers, there to do a job. What makes you think evidence was planted? What makes you think NORAD stood down? What makes you think plane crashes were faked? Where do you get these funny ideas?
Ian, your unfunny jokes are an offense to the victims of 9/11.
"why would the people who "hurdle away the evidence" be co-conspirators?"
And they were minion-like creatures who would not be aware that they were destroying evidence..
Sure...
" What makes you think evidence was planted?"
That is what your fellow conspiracy freaks claim: that they planted plane debris, hijacker passports, plane contents, personal belongings of victims, etc at the crash sites.
" What makes you think NORAD stood down? "
That is what your fellow conspiracy freaks claim: NORAD was standing down, allowing the attacks to happen.
"What makes you think plane crashes were faked?"
That is what your fellow conspiracy freaks claim: no planes crashed in manhattan, near shanksville or in washington.
They were faked.
"Where do you get these funny ideas? "
911blogger.com is a good starting point.
But good to see that you too have become aware that 911truth is dead.
More and more people realize that it is just a bunch of funny ideas.
Ian, your unfunny jokes are an offense to the victims of 9/11.
You're not a victim of 9/11, Brian. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and can't afford a decent haircut.
th, the clean up workers either didn't know or didn't care that they were destroying the evidence at the crime scene.
So your basis for believing that evidence was planted, and NORAD stood down, and the plane crashes were faked is the claims of "conspiracy freaks"? When did you start believing the claims of conspiracy freaks?
Are you claiming that 911blogger promotes the claims that evidence was planted, and NORAD stood down, and the plane crashes were faked? Can you cite any evidence to support that claim?
Ian, your continued obsession with haircuts is noted. How about shoes? I bet you know a lot of about shoes.
"Th, the clean up workers either didn't know or didn't care that they were destroying the evidence at the crime scene."
Gee, another baseless, speculative bunch of garbage.
Now if I claim they more likely did care but found nothing, Brian will accuse me of baseless speculation and that his baseless speculation was no such thing. Rube.
I'll stick with the common sense notion that steel workers and demolition companies involved in the cleanup would care and know what it would look like and the total lack of any bringing forth concerns ends the narrative. But that's just me using common sense.
"Th, the clean up workers either didn't know or didn't care that they were destroying the evidence at the crime scene."
Prove it.
So Brian what was your professional reputation before it had been sullied by being an outspoken critic? You seem unwilling to answer.
Ian, has it only been 7 years of Brian's babble? Seems longer.
Shamrock, the cleanup workers didn't know they were destroying a crime scene or didn't care that they were destroying a crime scene--or they did know and did care but didn't do anything about it. What other posture is possible?
You are mushing together two separate issues--did they care and did they find anything. If they did care and they found something, then they should want a proper crime scene investigation to see if they could find anything else. If they did care and they didn't find anything, then they should want a proper crime scene investigation to ensure that they didn't miss anything.
But of course we know they didn't care, because they kept on with their scoop and dump cleanup even after family members complained and the firefighters rioted and the complete body of a man in a business suit turned up in the rubble at Freshkills landfill and Fire Engineering Magazine screamed bloody murder about the destruction of the evidence.
And we know that evidence was destroyed. Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained bitterly to cbs and PBS about the destruction of the steel. NIST tells us that the steel samples they studied to determine the temperatures experienced by the steel were no representative. Of course they only said that after the results of the tests were not to their liking.
And we know that evidence was found. The FEMA investigators found samples of partially-vaporized steel that the NYT called "Perhaps the deepest mystery" of the investigation.
"Shamrock, the cleanup workers didn't know they were destroying a crime scene or didn't care that they were destroying a crime scene--or they did know and did care but didn't do anything about it. What other posture is possible?"
Err, the other posture is there was no evidence. Are you seriously saying that's not possible?
And we know that evidence was destroyed. Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained bitterly to cbs and PBS about the destruction of the steel.
And which Dr Asteneh-Asi is that? The one who wrote this:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/world-trade-center-collapse-field.html?m=1
And we know that evidence was found. The FEMA investigators found samples of partially-vaporized steel that the NYT called "Perhaps the deepest mystery" of the investigation."
i thought you said they didn't look for evidence or wouldn't know what to look for. Seems like they found some.
and Fire Engineering Magazine screamed bloody murder about the destruction of the evidence.
And where does FEM stand on the whole truther thing?
the clean up workers either didn't know or didn't care that they were destroying the evidence at the crime scene.
Speculation.
So your basis for believing that evidence was planted, and NORAD stood down, and the plane crashes were faked is the claims of "conspiracy freaks"? When did you start believing the claims of conspiracy freaks?
I never said i believed it.
You need to pay more attention to what people are writing.
Are you claiming that 911blogger promotes the claims that evidence was planted, and NORAD stood down, and the plane crashes were faked? Can you cite any evidence to support that claim?
Read the website.
I even gave you a link.
NIST tells us that the steel samples they studied to determine the temperatures experienced by the steel were no representative
NIST does not do crime scene investigations, so that point is completely bogus.
Ian, has it only been 7 years of Brian's babble? Seems longer.
That is because all these years he is repeating the same nonsense in every comment he posts.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/02/brian-goods-greatest-hits.html
Yup, 7 years here, at least. Of course, he's been babbling about this stuff elsewhere for over a decade. He just got banned at most other places, such as Democratic Underground, where he posted his "meatball on a fork" scribbles.
The FEMA investigators found samples of partially-vaporized steel that the NYT called "Perhaps the deepest mystery" of the investigation.
Only micro-nukes could vaporize steel. That, along with the radiation in the dust, and the burnt baboon fur found in the wreckage (these are all part of the essential mysteries) make it clear that micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons brought the towers down.
Mr. Rock (can I call you Sham?) "no evidence" is not a posture on the destruction of a crime scene. "No evidence" would be a conclusion after a through investigation of a crime scene.
And the fact is, there was evidence. There was the steel, for instance. Every piece of steel was marked with a code that identified its location in the building. It thus would have been possible to collect the steel and reconstruct the impact zones of the towers and any other floors of interest. It would have been possible to log the location of every piece of steel in the pile and learn an enormous amount about the process of the collapse. There was evidence.
Dr. Astaneh complained bitterly to cbs and PBS about the destruction of the steel.
"My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what's going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it. But that was my wish. My wish is not what happens."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/culling-through-mangled-steel/
"After 9/11, we realized that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has sent all this steel that we need to study. That's why I'm here to study steel. To send steel to a recycling plant to go to China for recycling, for what? For 15 cents a pound. That's nothing. And all the evidence of steel went to melting pot."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science-jan-june07-overpass_05-10/
th, to dismiss the axiomatic as speculation is inconsistent with the seeking of truth. You and Mr. Rock seem to be clutching at excuses to discard facts.
The cleanup workers didn't know they were destroying a crime scene or didn't care that they were destroying a crime scene--or they did know and did care but not enough to do anything about it. That is axiomatic. If you believe another posture is possible, you are welcome to suggest one.
How in your mind do NIST's claims that their own steel samples were not representative connect to Ground Zero's status as a crime scene? Both you and Mr. Rock have a habit of mushing together separate issues in the vain hopes that the mixture will yield a point.
th, to dismiss the axiomatic as speculation is inconsistent with the seeking of truth. You and Mr. Rock seem to be clutching at excuses to discard facts.
Excuses for what? Nobody cares that you and a paltry number of professionals weren't satisfied with the investigation. You bring up dr asteneh. He does two things. He proves professionals aren't afraid for their reputations toquestion certain aspects of the investigation AND he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns. And now you know why there are hardly any professionals in Gage's pathetic group.
How's your professional reputation? What was it again? You seem to forget to answer. Gee I wonder why?
Excuses for discarding facts. Glad I could clear that up for ya!
I care that the widows only got 27 answers to their 300 questions. I'm somebody. I care that NIST only gave us half a report on the towers, terminating their analysis at collapse initiation and thus dodging the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
Dr. Astaneh does not prove what you claim. He abandoned his studies of the WTC. He doesn't criticize the official investigations--even though he is a tenured professor at a very liberal university. I've seen him on video talking about a box column that he said was damaged by an explosion. He can not possibly be dumb enough to think that the partially evaporated steel girder he photographed was the work of jets and fire. He is smart enough to keep his mouth shut, though.
I care that the widows only got 27 answers to their 300 questions. I'm somebody.
Brian, you're nobody. You're an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents. 9/1 truth nonsense is your desperate attempt at having a life that's not completely meaningless. Smart and successful people don't fall for conspiracy cult nonsense.
And given that you're nobody, it's axiomatic that nobody cares about the so-called "widows".
I care that NIST only gave us half a report on the towers, terminating their analysis at collapse initiation and thus dodging the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
Nobody cares because (see above) you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
Dr. Astaneh does not prove what you claim. He abandoned his studies of the WTC. He doesn't criticize the official investigations--even though he is a tenured professor at a very liberal university. I've seen him on video talking about a box column that he said was damaged by an explosion. He can not possibly be dumb enough to think that the partially evaporated steel girder he photographed was the work of jets and fire. He is smart enough to keep his mouth shut, though.
Nobody cares what you think. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
Maybe if you got a job, you could move out of your parents' place and get a decent haircut. Then, maybe people would listen to anything you have to say.
"He is smart enough to keep his mouth shut, though."
More baseless, speculative garbage.
Funny, he was smart enough to not keep his mouth shut:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/world-trade-center-collapse-field.html?m=1
"No evidence" would be a conclusion after a through investigation of a crime scene."
I assume you're off your asinine sloppy writing/sloppy thinking meds!! Lol.
When there is no evidence, a THOROUGH investigation isn't required. Even those like Dr Asteneh-Asi understand this. That's why he blogged what he did and didn't join your pathetic movement.
Ian, where do you get your information about my employment status? It's true that I am not employed as a janitor, but if that made me an "unemployed janitor" it would surely make you the same.
By relying on the ad hominem you make all your claims false. You waste your time, and the time of everyone who bothers to read your comments.
Shamrock, if you want to cite statements of Dr. Astaneh-As;, you should quote them directly and not rely on dodgy websites for your authority.
A thorough investigation is required before the conclusion of no evidence is justified. And at Ground Zero there was considerable evidence of what happened. There was the steel, all with ID numbers that would allow researchers to place its location in the building. Your claim of "no evidence" is not only premature, it is wrong from Day One.
Ian, where do you get your information about my employment status?
From you. You told us that you're a failed janitor.
By relying on the ad hominem you make all your claims false. You waste your time, and the time of everyone who bothers to read your comments.
And yet you've spent 7 years "wasting your time" responding to my comments. I guess you don't have anything else to do given that you have no job, no friends, no family, no life.
A thorough investigation is required before the conclusion of no evidence is justified. And at Ground Zero there was considerable evidence of what happened. There was the steel, all with ID numbers that would allow researchers to place its location in the building. Your claim of "no evidence" is not only premature, it is wrong from Day One.
Nobody cares if a failed janitor who wears women's underwear thinks there was considerable evidence.
Shamrock, if you want to cite statements of Dr. Astaneh-As;, you should quote them directly and not rely on dodgy websites for your authority.
So you didn't read the conclusions reached by Dr Asteneh-Asi. Understood. I wouldn't either if I were you. So you get to not quote Dr Asteneh-Asi, instead using "complained bitterly" as your proof he had issues with the investigation, whilst ignoring a document that proves he doesn't give a shite about the truth movement, in fact has reached a conclusion antithetical to YOU!!
Here's the study. Avoid it Brian as clearly, truth is not what you seek.
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf
I'm guessing that as Nist is attached to the url, you'll decide Dr Asteneh-Asi had a conflict of interest and drop him as a future source for your irrelevancy.
Brian, again: NIST does not do crime scene investigations. The FBI does and they had more than 1000 policemen and agents searching through ground zero and Fresh Kills for evidence.
They are the ones responsible for the crime scene and for the determination which pieces are evidence and which pieces are not. NIST had no business being on the scene until the crime investigation was finished and too bad for them, much of what they needed for their investigation was gone at that time.
dodging the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
As discussed many times, NIST wasn't assigned to investigate your 10 mysteries of the collapses, they were assigned to investigate if and in what way the design and use played a role in the global collapse initiation and to come with recommendations to make future buildings safer in that regard.
That was their assignment and that is what they delivered.
If want to better understand why beam X fell to the left in stead of to the right, go ahead and assemble your own investigation team.
I'm guessing that as Nist is attached to the url, you'll decide Dr Asteneh-Asi had a conflict of interest and drop him as a future source for your irrelevancy.
No, Brian won't do that. What he does is use a mined quote that makes it seem like the good doctor agrees with him and is an unimpeachable source, but in the next post, dismiss him as a fraud who is being paid off to agree with the official conclusions when the doctor dismisses the truthers as lunatics. It's easy to create a conspiracy theory when you can hold endless contradictory views, like how the explosives were silent AND first responders heard loud explosions from the explosives detonating. Brian believes both of these things.
Ian, I never said I was a failed janitor. I'm not a failed janitor. You are a liar.
I never said Dr. Astaneh agreed with me. I said he complained bitterly about the destruction of evidence at the WTC crime scene. I agree with him. You are a liar.
There is no contradiction between the fact that different kinds of explosives exhibit varying noise profiles and the fact that dozens of first responders reported sounds of explosions. You seem to live in a world where if someone was shot, he couldn't have been poisoned also. It's a good thing you will never have any real responsibility in the world.
Shamrock, you did not quote any conclusions of Dr. Astaneh-Asl, and I have no reason to think your weblink hosted any such conclusions. Does your alleged "study" appear on Dr. Asteneh's own website? If not, why not?
What exactly did Dr. Astaneh-Asl conclude?
th, why do you mush together police and FBI "responsible for the crime scene"? Where do you get your information?
NIST's number one objective was to explain "why and how" the three skyscrapers collapsed. Any explanation of "how" would need to explain the 10 essential mysteries associated with "how". NIST declined to explain how, and dodged the mysteries.
"NIST's number one objective was to explain "why and how" the three skyscrapers collapsed. Any explanation of "how" would need to explain the 10 essential mysteries associated with "how".
Nope, their objective was not to explain your mysteries.
"th, why do you mush together police and FBI "responsible for the crime scene"? "
You deny that?
Post a Comment
<< Home