DescentBB

Uh... America has incited plenty of hatred against itself, sure, but apart from all the other interference in the Middle East, it gets a fair amount of that from supporting Israel.

Not going to be easy to stop that...

Hello McFly

The report says that a mine was more probable than previously concluded.

and what exactly was previously concluded? what was previously concluded was that it was a coal fire that caused the magazine to explode.

and the 1999 team stated that.

it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and detonation of the magazines.

so if you need I can break it down in layman's terms for you to understand. if there is any twisting being done here palz its been by you. the facts say what the facts say. is America without fault in the world? NO. but you seem to want to INSIST that ALL the worlds problems are caused by America. how Naive you are in that way of thinking

so you sir are a Prevaricator

pre·var·i·ca·tor /prɪˈværɪˌkeɪtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-var-i-key-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

A person who speaks so as to avoid the precise truth; quibbler; equivocator.

Just for grins, here's another one (without historical controversy, I might add): the terms of the Versailles treaty were patently unfair to Germany, largely creating the conditions by which the Nazis were able to gain power.

hey ya got one right 1 of 3 ain't too good tho. but even a blind squirrel gets the nut occasionally

And I don't care one way or another if you want to act like some whiny baby because you got called a name

heh don't remember whining like a baby. I just thought it was rather 3rd grade of you so I was pointing out the fact

CUDA wrote:

The report says that a mine was more probable than previously concluded.

and what exactly was previously concluded? what was previously concluded was that it was a coal fire that caused the magazine to explode.

No. In all seriousness, you're misinterpreting the sentence as anyone here would have to admit. See, the statement doesn't say, "a mine was more probable than a coal fire, which had previously been concluded to be the cause." Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

(And this is the last favor I do you in this thread)

What was previously concluded was that it was NOT a mine, torpedo, external explosion, etc. THAT is what the 1999 study found more probable than previously concluded. Not that a mine was more probable than a coal fire. But that a mine was more probable than...couldn't have been a mine! This is your equivocation.

Accept this.

And don't forget that the finding was disputed by other analysts who helped work on the report and you now have an honest picture.

Good luck.

Ok I see how you could have come to that conclusion. I disagree with your interpretation, but on this subject we can agree to disagree.