JB wrote 4 posts without providing a single counter argument.Lots of insults, accusations of spookdom, and reiterations of his conclusions - but no facts, analysis or reasoning.

At the risk of being tedious, I will again point out that simply stating an opinion over and over again, does not qualify as "argument", much less as research. If we all showed the same standards as JB, IMC would be reduced to long pages of "Yes it is", "No its not", "Yes it is", "No its not"...

It also seems that JB was unable to handle having a bit of his own agro dished back to him, which means it was foolish for him to start with the headkicking, if he couldn't also take it.

But I think what really scared him, was that Scott very nicely invited him to discuss any concerns he had with the article.

The terror of being nailed down to having to produce a real argument, in place of his tedious repetitions of meaningless usupported conclusions, caused him to hightail it to the hills, which is what supporters of the govt story about sept 11 usually do, once its time to get down to facts and rational analysis.