add-memberalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbellblockcalendarcamerachatchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-upcircle-with-crosscomposecrossfacebookflagfolderglobegoogleimagesinstagramkeylocation-pinmedalmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1pagepersonpluspollsImported LayersImported LayersImported LayersshieldstartwitterwinbackClosewinbackCompletewinbackDiscountyahoo

Re: Re: [humanism-174] regarding TC3

From: Glen
Sent on: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:52 PM
Mark O wrote:

"If he [Tim] accepts the report conditionally, then I would think, at the
very least this implies an openness to discuss the matter.  But his
statements are more in line with someone who accept the N.I.S.T.
reports unconditionally."   

Since I also conditionally accept the report, let me clarify what I for one mean by that, and why the alleged inconsistency Mark complains about does not exist. I accept the report conclusions because they appear reasonable and consistent with the evidence regarding the impacts, fires, materials involved, witnesses, etc.  The condition under which I would question the conclusions or want to discuss them further would be the presentation of convincing (or at least plausible) _counter evidence_ --not just speculations, innuendos, and suspicions from someone who admits that his views are not evidence based.  


Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy