So you say. And we're just supposed to simply salute and believe everything you say? That's not science.
Finding one possible explanation for the detection of silica and oxygen and believing it MUST be the ONLY explanation is NOT SCIENCE.
You look for things which support your beliefs, and when you find them you declare that they are the final truth. That's NOT SCIENCE.
Ed argues against an Al Qaeda theory:
“It’s all really very simple. It’s just the hard-core al Qaeda theorists who try to complicate things with wild theories about how dead people
could mail letters a week and a month after they died.”
Yet, Ed nowhere discusses the affiliates and supporters of Al Qaeda in the US. First, he reasoned (foolishly) that the FBI would be talking about them (rather than trying to wiretap them while their guard was down). Then when they began talking about them — issuing $5 million rewards etc. — Ed made no mention of them and just has left his “hijackers are dead” theory as the cornerstone of his theory against an Al Qaeda theory.
As someone responded to Ed:
“Ed. It seems you still believe that there are only 19 al qaeda, and
they are all dead from the 911 attacks... “
Ed has no answer. He has this dichotomy: “American scientist” vs. supporter of the Salafi-jihadists. It’s as if Ed does not realize that the two categories are not exclusive. That’s because he has a “Bogey Man” view of Al Qaeda and does not recognize that a Salafist who supports the jihadists might be the nicest (and most consummately professional) guy you ever met.
The reason Ed does not mention Al-Timimi on his website and his lawyer’s admission he is an “anthrax weapons suspect” is that it would blow every puerile argument he has every made about an Al Qaeda Theory to smitheerens. Ali was an American scientist, Ed.
Ed did not explore the possibility that there were American scientists because he was a true believer in his specious drunk bowler theory.
“And we’re just supposed to simply salute and believe everything you say?”
There are thousands of links, organized chronologically, in support of the argument here. I don’t believe you’ll find any broken links.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/bibliography.html
BTW, in case you didn’t see the movie “Michael Clayton,” “Summons to Conquest” is the name of the memo he is holding. It was the name of a chapter in a book explained by his son to him. That name was then selected by senior defense counsel Albert in writing his memo. Given that the Vanguards of Conquest used the anthrax in threatening the destruction of the US, I thought Summons to Conquest was an appropriate title.