That's not true.
It may be a "theory" that the attack spores had a sophisticated silica coating. However, when you have expert eyewitness testimony and solid facts which show that the attack spores did not have a coating, that is not an alternative "theory".
Facts and expert testimony are not the same as "theory."
And when facts show the "theory" about a sophisticated coating to be total unscientific nonsense, and that it's just a screwball conspiracy theory, it's doubly wrong to suggest that such a disproven theory is as equally valid as what solid facts indicate.
No offense intended.
Misinformation is a powerful ally that I won’t alienate.
Misinformation is used to promote all sorts of conspiracy theories. Allowing such idiotic theories to continue and to gain new converts every day does no one any good.
Misinformation should be identified and debunked whenever possible. We can't assume that ignorance is what is best for Americans or anyone.
Hey Ed,
No insult received...everything is fine. I respectfully have alternative viewpoints to yours.
1. I would not agree with you that the truth about one potential technological process to create improvised biological weapons should be delivered in a public format and therefore available to terrorists who would be likely to repeat that process. That would be irresponsible and potentially legally “complicatory” which is why I refuse to address technological issues on this blog. As far as conspiracy theories go, I wasn’t addressing them at all or promoting one view over another. My point is merely to say that if I see something on line that describes a process to create a weapon that can hurt people and that I know that process to not be of value, I am not going to correct it for the sake of “truth to the public”. I would hope that IF a terrorist was going to attack the people and couldn’t be stopped, that he or she would use such misinformation to develop his/her weapon. If people want to argue about conspiracy theories, that’s their right but I won’t engage in such discussions for the aforementioned reasons.
2. As an experienced scientist myself, I see your perspective when you are attempting to educate me as to the difference between theory and fact and will agree with you that there is a difference between the two. I will also provide the following though for your consideration. “Facts” are only as strong as the evidence upon which they are based and the people interpreting that evidence. A very, very important skill every scientist must develop is to analyze the methodology and results before agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. Quite well known scientists have had their conclusions “debunked” due to problems in their methodology...happens all of the time. One very public piece of information is that there was a very small amount of powder recovered for examination which means the sample size for the study was very small and subject to high degree of error and arguement. It’s like trying to draw conclusions on the lifestyles of the people of the world by only examing a couple of cultures. Sorry, I am not going to continue discussing the forensic conclusions or methodologies for the aforementioned security concerns.
Wish you the best, Ed. I’m very happy all of you are so dedicated to the investigation (we need to find the killer/killers) but I do just ask you to please keep in mind the security issues involved before you hit the “post” button. What you discover is important and hopefully the respective authorities are appreciative as you turn your information over to them.