LIHOP: not

[Thoth II]

Sad to hear a few stragglers out there, eh, not to pick on just her, Anita Langley, I respected her contributions to BOR and meticulousness to detail of documents; she claims that LIHOP was what happened because she has evidence of documents of bin Laden/al Qaeda planning the attacks, and unbeleivably, she still holds this position I heard her already this year.  LIHOP is so over I can't believe it is still being seriously discussed..  

Here is where I am glad I understood Dr. Fetzer's many talks about scientific method.  We have to look at physical evidence and get the best hypothesis to explain that.  Well, the best evidence is for destruction of towers and no planes.  If there were no planes and towers blown up, how does al Qaeda even remotely come into this story.

This raises a problem: there are a certain set of people, Anita, Peter Lance, and Jim DiEugenio come to mind, who relie solely on documents , but the problem is, they don't know scientific method.  In cases like this, there were 5 layers of the deceptive onion to ensnare doc-trusting people like them ; but if we use science we can see through all this.  So not to cut down documents, but they can be a trail of breadcrumb lies .  I am glad we understand science here.