Current Evidence seems to say:

- They were not Labs
- They had no traces of bio or chem materials. Traces of BioChem are VERY hard to remove, and you can bet we are looking VERY hard. Its not like you just use bleach
- Our state department does not agree they were WMD labs
- Brit Intel does not agree they were WMD labs
- There is good factual reason to believe that they were sold as hydrogen separators by Monsanto
- They are simmilar in design and function to other hydrogen separators

Okay, so what- this has all been said before. So If this does not move you, why should you say 'we' are ignoring the issue?

Shouldn't any rational person think that the trailors, at least for now, are a non issue? Or should I persist in faith in front of the significant evidence that they are NOT WMD LABS.

Its not like some 'independent research group' is questioning the nature of the Trailors- EVERYONE BUT THE CIA AND PENTEGON is. In otherwords: the only folks saying they are WMD labs are the same folks who wrongly claimed Iraq was bursting at the seams with WMDs and the factories to make WMD. This is a serious blocker for anyone claiming that they are, in fact WMD labs.

"Obtuse"

I could make the same charge to you, Mark.... If you have 'heard all this before', but still persist in calling 'us' irrational for not 'facing the buried lab issue'- then which stance is obtuse?

You can't just stomp your foot down and call them WMD labs, you have to have some evidence. Right now, evidence is severely lacking. In fact, evidence points to the directly contradicting conclusion. Burdon of proof is on those making the claim and all that... Its usually a good Idea, or we end up with UFOlogists and Yetiology.

Davin L.