Which is the claim you are making!

Besides, to follow your analogy to the bitter end- What we have here is NOT an AK47, but a bunch of parts that vaguely resemble a weapon, that nobody can show how it would function as a weapon, with no ammunition and now marks of ever being used as a weapon.

God, this is UFOlogy!

Your CLAIM: These are WMD manufacturing facilities.

My RESPONSE:


• Show me how they could be used as part of WMD manufacturing
• Identify the process they are suited for, mechanically
• Exhibit some physical evidence that they have been used for WMD manufacturing (traces we both know could be found)



You are unable to do so on any count. I don't care if they are hyrogen gas generators or not, but if you DO want to claim them as WMD manufacturing units, you have to back up your claim!

Just because you can determine that a UFO (in the formal sense) is NOT a aircraft does NOT mean that you have found little green men from mars in a flying saucer. It simply means that the easy definition doesnt fit.

You totally disregard the intelligence from sources in Iraq before the war that told us about these trailers, described them, and said what they were for.

Oh do I? The stories I remember were of complex special built rail-cars and Semis, each very sophisiticated, climate controlled and etc. Not these completely non-functional indescernable pieces of junk that had canvass siding! Yep that Canvass siding is PERFECT for blocking your cultures from being contaminated! LOL!

Even should I place stock in the fantastical stories of defectors- I have to ask you: WHAT IF ANY of the stories of defectors (especially those funneled through the INC) has turned out to be true concerning WMD and terrorists? I'm waiting, Tom- name ONE!

Again, this is UFOlogy- these are like those shady 'secret' sources that used to work 'at area 51'... bullshit all the way around.

And why are you so hot to disregard Brit Intel? They are the ONLY other place we can go for support for HALF the claims made by american intel. Are you just selective?

tom wrote: "I don't have access to the classified Defense Intelligence Ageny report, or the classified June 2 State Department memo, which expressed doubts."

But the public statement concerning the findings of that report were available to you, did not support your case, and therefore you do not weigh it in with your other second hand, circumstantial, non-positive evidence! Selective use of information! UFOlogy!

Monsanto, Brit Intel, and the State Department have all stated that it is highly unlikely that those trailors could have been used for the manufacture of WMD. All of them think that they were for hydrogen gas. Since you have NO EVIDENCE to support your claim. The ONLY thing you can say is that YOU (who are NOT an expert on these matters) don't THINK that they were for hydrogen. Even if we grant you that, Tom, your still light years away from WMD factory.

"I have no definite proof of what these trailers are for, but I know what they're not. They're not standard military hydrogen production units, of the type actually shipped to Iraq. "

Jesus crist, Tom- finally some intellectual integrity bubbles up! If you KNOW you have no proof that these were part of a WMD program, why do you drag them out every 2 weeks? Thats really unadmirable!

Go get some damn proof and then come back and argue with me.

Davin L.

PS:
"I have proven that the trailers were not hydrogen units. Others have speculated that they were for pesticides, or rocket fuel, but oddly no traces of those elements were found either, which by your standards apparently proves they couldn't have been for those purposes either."

Man, this completely flys over your head- doesn't it? You just inverted the argument, so obviously you either think I'm a dope whos going to let you sham me, or you don't understand the basics of proof, evidence and common sense! My reasoning is like this:

Claim about trailors: These were used for pesticide manufacture
Retort: Identify how they could be used for pesticide manufacture
Claimer: I can't, but its true none-the-less
Retort: Show me traces of pesticide on them
Claimer: I can't
Retort: Then you have no evidence that they were for pesticides

The absence of evidence for the negative does not prove a positive. But you CAN'T prove a positive without evidence. Its like me pointing to a blip in the sky and saying "I don't know what that is, so it must be an alien".

Davin L.