You are the closest thing to a rational argument on the Missile Truther side on all of FR.On the contrary, I've been trying to debunk the "missile theory" all along, if you look at my posting history on this thread. I went to the effort of contacting both known eyewitnesses to do so; I've exchanged emails with Rick Warren, and I had a lengthy phone conversion and subsequent email exchange with Gil.
I'm not aware anyone else has done that, be it lbahneman, TXnMA or contrailscience.com. (By the way, are you saying that lbahneman runs contrailscience.com?)
Frankly, I still lean towards the explanation of contrailscience.com. The reason I contacted Gil was to confirm their take on it.
I was shocked to find that he was not convinced by their reconstruction of the facts, and that is the only reason I have continued the discussion, given his eyewitness viewpoint.
On the other hand, we have continued our email exchange since our phone conversation, and I think I've found a problem with his perspective that leans towards the credibility of contrailscience.com's explanation.
Once I iron that out, I'll report back.
Until then, I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterize my posting history on this thread as belonging to the Missile Truther camp.
Until then, I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterize my posting history on this thread as belonging to the Missile Truther Doc, my apologies, I did not intend to portray you as one of the True Missile Believers, and if I did, it was quite unintentional. I know your posting history, and was quite impressed with the intellectual honesty you've displayed, including your apparent "switch" (or at least consideration of the the interview POV).
What I meant was, nobody on the missile-assertion side came close to your credibility, until you arrived, seemingly, on their side.
No offense intended, please.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.