popular mechanics.....gov't patsies?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
anyone check out the newest issue of PM? it's the 9/11 debunking conspiracy theories issue. check it out.

www.popularmechanics.com...

if this link doesn't work just go to www.popularmechanics.com

just wanted some feedback from ya'll here on ats. what are your theories and do you believe that all of these theories should have been debunked?




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Things shouldn't be 'debunked' or 'not debunked'. They should be analyzed. If that analysis end up determining that the theories are incorrect, well, that's the way it is.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
through reading the acrticles i saw little in depth analysis of the theories...mostly quotes from persons who were on one side or the other. opinions and research from unbiased parties would have made the article more believable,to me at least.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
there are a few links with different views


By Howard Rark
9/11 myths debunked Popular Mechanics


By Siberian Tiger
Popular Mechanics Debunked

By Sauron
'Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   
thanks for those. my problem is that i find some of the so-called conspiracy thoeries to be more believable than the nationally publicied reason. for example,the pancaking of the tower.....how can so many demo experts agree that with the construction of the wtc,other explosives had to be involved and in the PM issue it is debunked with really no solid 100% proof that there were NO other explosives involved?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
thanks for those. my problem is that i find some of the so-called conspiracy thoeries to be more believable than the nationally publicied reason. for example,the pancaking of the tower.....how can so many demo experts agree that with the construction of the wtc,other explosives had to be involved and in the PM issue it is debunked with really no solid 100% proof that there were NO other explosives involved?


I do not believe that there are any demo experts that believe that explosives were used.



[edit on 13-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
More patsies, political tools and technical analyses addressing many aeronautical, ballistic and building engineering aspects here (but not the unanswered questions as to why it was all allowed to happen):

www.abovetopsecret.com...



While that comment largely became redundant at 11.21am, due to a long interval between my posts, the following one did not:

Popular Mechanics, for the purpose and way in which it published the article - even after considering any technical merits - now officially SUX.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
remaro was one of the demo people i was talking about...and magically he retracted his statement?!?!?!? things that make ya go HMMM.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Did you read the PM article?

He made a mistake that's all. Is it impossible for someone to change their mind without being crucified for it?

Conspiracy theorists have made his life hell. they impune his integrity without a second thought.



Besides, do you realize just how many engineers and architects there are out there? have any others come forward?

No? How come that doesn't make you go "Hmmmm, maybe they have the training and experience to see something here that I don't. If they don't think that it was a controlled demolition, shouldn't I accept that?"

Instead the conspiracy theorists come up with this unbelievably convoluted theory that all of the engineers across the world are some how in on this.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
that isn't what i am saying. it's just that the gov't usually has heads up on EVERYTHING!!! especially when it comes to our air space. in the confusion i honestly don't know what to believe and what not to believe. it's just really sad for the victims of those explosions. and if the truth really isn't what the gov't has told us,then they are sick. i hope that the truth is what they tell us,that every detail of the attacks is true,otherwise we live in a really unhumanistic,unFREE place.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Psychogirl, think about it for a moment. In order for the conspiracy theories to be correct, there would have to be thousands of people who would have direct knowledge of it. THink of all the possible loopholes and security issues. How many people would you need to plant the explosives in the building? How would you get past the security. Not just the building either, but most tenants have their own security systems. many of those offices were manned 24/7.

What about the building management?

How would you stop the thousands of architects and engineers?

The types of explosives used in building demolitions are quite loud. How do you ensure that no camera or recording device is in the area? What about all of the live news feeds?

Once you get into it, the sheer complexity of a possible conspiracy becomes immense.

Then you start getting into what I like to call the law of inverse secrets.

That is the likelihood of any secret remaining a secret is inversely proportional to the number of people in on it.

That is, if one person can keep a secret to himself that secret is never revealed. If two people are in on it, there is a 50% chance that that secret will be revealed. Four people, a 75% chance that it will come out.

If 1,000 people know something, it is no longer a secret.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
my question was this: PM is a major magazine.....one i have read for a long time.....and the 9/11 article was weak to say the least. why wasn't more information written? why weren't more of these theories analyzed? i think it was a weak article and from the other threads i've read it makes it seem like the mag is influenced by politics and big business...not science.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
my question was this: PM is a major magazine.....one i have read for a long time.....and the 9/11 article was weak to say the least. why wasn't more information written? why weren't more of these theories analyzed? i think it was a weak article and from the other threads i've read it makes it seem like the mag is influenced by politics and big business...not science.



They only had to touch the highlights of the conspiracy arguments to prove them wrong. If the basic premises behind the conspiracy theories are flawed, then why should they go into the details?


And you are right, PM is a major magazine. There are lots of smart technically oriented people that work and write for them. It would appear that they don't buy the conspiracy theories.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It would appear that they don't buy the conspiracy theories.





Yes, so it would "appear".

And who "bought" Popular Mechanics to get them to publish their partial analysis, touching only the highlights and obscuring the rest? Sounds like standard protocol for the incumbent administration of some superpower somewhere in the Americas.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I guess if you are so paranoid that you look at every organization as being part of a plot against you, then that is how it would seem.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
No, it's just transparently obvious in the editing of the Popular Mechanics article. It's not a plot against me, but it is corrupt commerce. Too bad for Popular Mechanics.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Psychosgirl, I believe that people can believe whomever they want.

They can put all the people who don't believe it was a conspiracy on one side (every single explosives expert who's said anything about it, including a guy who had the courage to admit he was mistaken, all the engineers who have analyzed the data, all the science authors and stuff on every single magazine and newspaper throughout the entire world, and so on)...

...and, on the other side, the people (all of whom don't seem to want to even tell you who they are or what their background is) who believe that anyone or any organization which uses the preponderance of evidence is part of the Huge Secret Plot.

Or, they can take the easy way out and believe something, not because there's a preponderance of evidence, but because they want it to be true.

I know what side I'm picking -- the one with the preponderance of the evidence.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
that is the meat of my query. why weren't both sides equally documented. the majority of documentation was given to gov't officials who debunk all of the theories. it would have been more believable with more from the conspiracy theorists. kind of like a debate forum. it makes me question the article in a way that i usually don't question things. i like to see both sides of an issue...fully...in order to make my own conclusion.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
IMHO, that'd be like giving equal time to someone who thinks the Earth is flat or the Moon is made of cheese. It's hard to quantify such theories in a scientific magazine when there's no science or reputable scientists to back them up.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
psychosgirl says:

"...that is the meat of my query. why weren't both sides equally documented."

Probably because the conpiracy assertion folks don't have much to document. There was this French guy who came out with a site called "Find the Boeing" but it was picked apart by the scientists and engineers as having a bunch of flaws. The Frenchman never bothered to respond and defend his hypothesis.

Besides, it's not really about documentation; such documentation (e.g., fire company reports, video shots, eyewitness reports) are available to everyone who wants to find out. What it's really about is the interpretation of the documentation.

The scientists and engineers (including the guys who designed the buildings and the aircraft) say something like, "the aircraft, travelling at "a" miles per hour and weighing "y" pounds, struck with an impact force of "c" foot pounds, or "d" pounds per square inch, which exceeded the shear strength of the wall by a factor of "e". The jet fuel, burning at a temperature of "f" deg F, set other fires which burned at (3"f") degrees which exceeded the modulus of elasticity factor of the supporting steel members by a factor of "g", which, in turn..." and so on and so on.

This is not exciting stuff, because it's pretty dry, and most people don't even understand what a modulus of elasticity is, for cripes' sake, so our eyes glaze over and we look at the conspiracy assertion folks who say really cool and fun stuff, like "well, it's obvious that the jews and the CIA and the president are all a part of the plot which was first undovered by reading the message on the Georgia guide-stones backwards while playing in-a-gadda-da-vida on the night of a full moon and a half-empty bong."

"...the majority of documentation was given to gov't officials who debunk all of the theories. it would have been more believable with more from the conspiracy theorists."

You tell me, psychosgirl. No one's holding the conspiracy theorists in a cave somewhere. My belief is that the conspiracy theorists haven't produced any documentation because all the documentation that would convince most people also contradicts what they're saying, and they're certainly not going to shoot themselves down.

" i like to see both sides of an issue...fully...in order to make my own conclusion."

You can't blame the scientists and engineers because the conspiracy guys don't have any real evidence to offer.

I just go with the preponderance of evidence. i figure if there really were any such scientific or engineering evidence, the conspiracy theorists would have presented it.

Why haven't they? I'm afraid you'll have to ask them about that!





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join