No, some cannot see the difference between "Probability theory" and Occam's Razor. Or are pretending they can't.You failed the Turing Test again, Andrew.
When we should be helping each other.
You see, you can do Occam's Razor when it suits your objective.Um, did you mean: Why are you here if you think the truth is as the newspapers or government official story says it is?
So why can't we help each other?
Well help him out then because you have the ability to use Occam's Razor.Vinciguerra, of course, thinks nothing of the sort. Your random noise generator seems to have gone haywire. Ask your SysAdmin for a re-boot.
It was a pulled story that very few took notice of, rather that the ovewhelming msn media reports on different issues with regards to the suicide bomber meme. Lots of evidence here that could be followed up http://mtrial.org/inthemedia/201009-wha ... -july-2005 Even if it turns out wrong, it's still a line of enquiry that should be sought.When you are back up consider the possibility the "suicide bombers shot in Canary Wharf" rumour was deliberating started in order to introduce the suicide bomber meme.
(Which should be obvious as to why it was pulled if suicide bombers had supposedly blown themselves up on the trains and bus.) Hence: a very important line of enquiry.
Please see above, and it would not matter who they thought it was, other than what was reported and witnessed, for the line of enquiry to then gather hard evidence.A person looking out of an office window in Canary Wharf could see an incident and reasonably report that some-one had been shot. But how on earth could they know it was a suicide bomber?
I hope this thought does not crash you operating system.